(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Children's Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Annual historical review"

UNIVERSITY OF 

ILLINOIS LIBRARY 

AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGr 1 

BOOKSTACKS 



WITHDRAv 

University 
Illinois i 
atl.» ' /■■• 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2013 



http://archive.org/details/annualhistorical1985unit 



Oi- . X / ^ - ^, 



[ /}37-2l 






DEPOSITORY 



MAR 1 5 1938 

UNIVERSITY Or ILLINOIS 
AT URL. NA-CHAMPAIGN 



U.S. Army Materiel 
Command 



ANNUAL 



HISTORICAL REVIEW 

FY85 




June 1987 
AMCRE-H 



U.S. ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND 

ANNUAL HISTORICAL REVIEW 

FISCAL YEAR 1985 
(RCS-CSHIS-6 (R3)) 



Prepared by 

Historical Office 

Headquarters, U.S. Army Materiel Command 

June 1987 



APPROVED : 



DONALD R. WILLIAMSON 



M^^ 



Brigadier General, USA 
Deputy Chief of Staff 
for Readiness 



PREFACE 

This Fiscal Year 1985 Aanuai Historical Review of the US Army 
Materiel Command covers activities of tne Aj>1C Headquarters in pursuit 
of its mission on behalf of the US soldier during the twenty- tmrd 
year of its existence. It is a link in the continuing record of army 
men and women, uniformed and civilian, who pursue excellence in the 
equippage and maintenance of their country's land forces. The review 
serves as the official history of the Command, a source of 
information and conclusions on current topics that may be used by 
management, perhaps years hence, in reaching operational decisions. 
For just as preservation of memory tells us where we have been, 
history serves to define our present position and gives us some 
steerage in where we are headed. 

It is the aim of the AMC history program that the histories it 
publishes accurately depict the events they cover and the issues and 
concerns that were addressed. To the extent that it is successful, 
products like this AHR may be used by newly-assigned personnel for 
orientation and Dy future historians in preparation of other more 
comprehensive historical accounts. 

The history was prepared by the Headquarters AwC Historical 
Office with the assistance of personnel from each of the headquarters 
staff elements and project manager offices. The historical accounts 
prepared by these coordinators were submitted with appropriate 
background documentation to the History Office. The submissions were 
used extensively by the Historical Office historians in the 
preparation of the narrative, buttressed by such further research as 
is reflected in the footnotes, including interviews with a number of 
key staff personnel that ranged from brief telephonic contacts on 
specific points of inquiry to extended, wide-ranging interviews that 
were often preserved by tape recording. 

The preparation of the history was a team effort. The team 
leader was Or. Robert Darius, who planned and coordinated the 
project. The major portion of the history was written by Dr. Herbert 
Leventhal , who covered the topics of materiel acquisition, material 
readiness, force modernization, and product manager activities. He 
was assisted by Ms. Martha Crawley, who developed materials on AMC 
chemical and nuclear activities; Mr. Thomas Mani, who prepared the 
chapter on security assistance; and by Mr. Marcel Coppola and 
Dr. Charles Johnson, who combined in authoring the year's coverage of 
AMC ' s resource and personnel management. Their work is reflected in 
the Command and Management chapter, which covers the major themes of 
the year in microcosm. 

The manuscript was edited by Mrs. Guyanne Parker with the 
assistance of Mr. Thomas Mani. Ms. Dianne Alexander prepared the 
auxiliary materials and processed the manuscript for printing. 



ROBERT G. DARIUS 
Command Historian 



111 




General Richard H. Thompson 
Commander, AMC 



v 






LTG R. L. Moore 
Deputy Commanding General 



LTG L. F. Skibbie 
Deputy Commanding General 



MG J. D. Ross 
Chief of Staff 






CMS W. B. Tapp, Jr. 
Command Sergeant Major 



MS. M. B. Acton 
Deputy for Management 
and Analysis 



MG R. B. Adams 
Deputy Chief of Staff 
for Resource Management 



vi 






MG E. G. O'Connor 

Deputy Chief of Staff for 

Security Assistance 



MG J. S. Welch 
Deputy Chief of Staff for 
Supply, Maintenance and 
Transportation 



BG B. J. Stalcup 
Deputy Chief of Staff for 
Supply, Maintenance and 
Transportation 




MG J. G. Boatner 
Deputy Chief of Staff for 
Personnel 



VII 



US ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND 

ANNUAL HISTORICAL REVIEW 

FISCAL Yt,AR 1985 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CHAPTER PAGE 

I RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 1 

Organization and Mission 1 

Programs and Projects Office 2 

Systems Management Division 2 

Obligation Tracking System (OTS) 2 

Automated Financial Entitlements System (AFES) — 3 

Program and Budget System 3 

AMC Automated Manpower Management Information 

System (AAMMIS) 4 

Internal Review and Audit Compliance Division 4 

Summary of Reviews 4 

Review of Sponsorsnip of Conferences 4 

Audit of AMC Corporate Fitness Program 5 

Review of the AMC Command Morale 

Support Fund 5 

Audit of Corrective Action on Internal 

Control Material Weaknesses 5 

Review of Contingency Funds of the 

Secretary of the Army 5 

Validation of Consolidation and 

Containerization Point In-House Costs at 

New Cumberland Army Depot 5 

Audit of the Evaluation of Operating 

Accounting Systems 6 

Audit of Special Mission Funds 6 

Audit Guide - Computer-Assisted 

Reconciliation of Unliquidated Obligations 

(Installation Supply) 6 

Use of Defense Property Disposal Service 6 

Acquisition and Procurement 6 

Manager's Guide - Foreign Military 

Sales (FMS) 7 

Manager's Guide - Travel and Transportation - 7 
Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) Report 

Follow-Up System • 7 

Audit Alert Network.: Access to Tape 

Libraries 7 

Unobligated Funds/Contingent Liabilities 7 

Daily Audit Activity Report 7 

Cost Analysis Division 8 

Operational Baseline Cost Estimate (OBCE) 8 

RAM-D Funding Wedge 8 



IX 



CHAPTER PAGE 

I (Cont'd) 

Cost Research 8 

Operating and Support Cost Management Information 

System (O&SCMIS) 9 

Total Risk. Assessing Cost Estimate for 

Production (TRACE-P) 9 

Cost Analysis Award 9 

AMC Cost Analysis Workload Survey 9 

AMC Cost Analysis Personnel Profile 9 

Economic Analysis Pamphlet 10 

Warranties 10 

Production Base Support (PBS) 10 

Cost Analysis for Decision Making (CADM) 10 

Cost Estimate for Alternative Decision 

Packages (ADPs) 10 

Baseline Cost Estimates (BCE) and BCE 

Reassessments 10 

Independent Cost Estimates (ICE) 11 

Cost and Operational Effectiveness 

Analyses (COEA) 12 

Selected Acquisition Reports (SAR), Unit Cost 
Reports (UCR), Supplemental Contractor Cost 
Reports (SCCR) and Defense Acquisition 

Executive Summary Reports (DAES) 12 

ASARC/DSARC Reviews 13 

Contract Cost Performance Division 13 

General 13 

Progress in Applying Cost/Schedule Control 

System Criteria (C/SCSC) 13 

Independent Assessment of Major Contracts with 

Cost Risk 14 

Training 14 

Finance and Accounting Division 15 

Program Execution 15 

Consolidation of DESCOM Accounting 

Operations 15 

Removal of RDTE Activities from Army 

Industrial Fund Financing lb 

Army Materiel Command Division (AMCD) 
(Wholesale) Army Stock Fund (ASF) Cash 

Management 16 

Conventional Ammunition Working Capital 

Fund (CAWCF) — 16 

Reemphasis on Effective Obligation 

Procedure 16 

Upgraded Funds Control System 17 

Army Charge Card Test 17 



CHAPTER PAGE 



I (Cont'd) 

Establishment of US Army Information System 

Command 17 

Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Program Budget -- 18 

Organization 18 

Program Budget and Funding Policy Division 18 

Zero Base Budgeting 18 

Implementation of Program Integration 

Capabilities (IPIC) Task Force 19 

The Army Plan (TAP)/Macroanalyses Process 19 

Program Objective Memorandum (POM) Control 

Working-. Group (PCWG) 19 

RDTE Execution Office 19 

Future Year Operations 19 

The FY87-91 RDTE Program 19 

Program Execution 19 

Procurement Execution Stock Fund Division 20 

Budget Division 21 

Status FY85 Operations and Maintenance, 

Army (OMA) Funds 21 

AMC Management Decision Package (M-DEP) Concept - 21 
Command Operating Budget (COB) /PARR 

Consolidation 22 

Program Integration Division 22 

RDA Reviews 22 

LRRDAP 22 

PARR — ~ 23 

HTMD/ADEA/LID 23 

Army Materiel Plan Review 24 

Intelligence Input to Resource Programing 24 

IPIC Task Force 24 

Single Manager for Conventional Ammunition (SMCA) 

Program Decision Increment Package (PDIP) 24 

Force Development Division 25 

Personnel Space Authorization and Strength 25 

Civilian 25 

Civilian End Strength 25 

Elimination of Civilian Ceilings 25 

Management of Civilian Strength 28 

Command-Wide Freeze 28 

End FY85 Closeout 28 

End FY85 Impact on FY86 28 

Military 28 

Force Alignment Plan II, Command Grade 

Ceiling (FAP II, CGC) 28 

Conversion of AMC Enlisted to 

Civilian (FY88) 29 



XI 



CHAPTER PAGE 

I (Cont'd) 

Operating Strength Deviation (OSuV) 29 

European Troop Strength (ET) 29 

Military to Civilian Conversion/1.5 Percent 

TDA Cut 29 

Unprogrammed Manpower Requirements 29 

FY85 - - - 29 

Army Management Headquarters Activities (AMhA) -- 30 

AMHA Delegation of Authority 30 

Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Ceiling Exemption 

Legislation 31 

Manpower Office 31 

Control of Overhires in HQ AMC 31 

Manpower Qualitative Management 32 

Manpower Staffing Standards Systems (MS -3) — 32 

AMC Evaluation System (ARES) Redesign 33 

Operation PRO ACT 33 

AMC Resource Management Executive 

Workshop (RMEW) 34 

Managing Manpower by Program Development 

Increment Package (PDIP) 34 

Mobilization Base Requirements 

Model (MOBREM) 35 

Officer Personnel Management System (OPMS) — 35 
Johnston Island Assessment Task 

Force (JATF) - 35 

TAADS Operational Impact 35 

Unit Reporting System (UNITREP) Management 36 

FY87091 Program Analysis and Resource 

Review (PARR) — 36 

Command Operating Budget 37 

FY87 Army Industrial Fund (AIF) Budget and 

FY85 Annual Report 37 

Schedule on Detail of Permanent Positions 37 

FY85 Overtime Review and Analysis (R&A) 38 

Total Army Analysis (TAA)-92 38 

Program Management 722898 - Management 

Headquarters Logistics 38 

Program Management 722896N - Administration - 39 

RDTE Civilian Manpower Program 39 

Standard Installation Organization 39 

Establishment of New AMS Codes for 

Automation 40 

Life Cycle Software Engineering 

Support (LCSE) 40 

Productivity Management Division 40 

AMC Productivity Program Management 40 



xii 



CHAPTER PAGE 

I (Cont'd) 

Model Installation Program (MLP) 41 

Productivity Gain Sharing (PGS) 41 

Quality Circles (QC) 41 

Defense Regional Inter-Service Support (DRIS) 

Program 42 

AMC Productivity Capital Investment Program 43 

Subject Matter Assessments (SMA)/Manpower 

Staffing Standards (MS-3) 43 

Office of Management and Analysis 44 

Analysis Division 45 

Study of Specifications and Standards 45 

High Technology Command Functions 45 

Management Review of US Army Satellite 

Communications Agency (SATCOMA) 45 

Review of Navy and Army Materiel Organizations -- 46 
Office of Management and Analysis 

Automation Plan 46 

Review and Analysis Division 46 

AMC Internal Controls Program 46 

Lessons Learned Program 47 

Program/Project/Product Management (PM) 

Criteria 47 

Program/Pro ject/Product Matrix Management 47 

Four Year Development Concept 47 

Scientists and Engineers Involvement in the 
Research and Development Procurement 

Process at AMC Laboratories 48 

Comprehensive Review of Reports 48 

Army Integrated Publishing Network (AIPN) 48 

Command Review and Analysis 48 

Performance Indicator Review Process 49 

Kirwan Report II 49 

Studies Management Division 49 

Systems Analysis Offices (SAO) Review 49 

AMC-R 672-3, Commanding General's Award for 

Installation Excellence 49 

Studies Management Division 49 

Managing Analytical Support Services (MASS) - 49 

Army Commanders' Conference (ACC) 50 

AMC Commanders 'Conference (AMCCC) 50 

The Army Study Program 51 

Quality Control of Analytical Studies 51 

Army Materiel Command Directions (AMC/D) 51 

AMC Program Plan 52 



xn 1 



CHAPTER PAGE 

I (Cont'd) 

Technical Library 52 

Automation 52 

Library Tours/Orientation 52 

Online Services 53 

DIALOG — -- 53 

DTIC 53 

DLSIE 53 

Collection 53 

Acquisitions 53 

Weeding 53 

Congressional Information Service (CIS) 53 

Bibliographies/Displays — ' 53 

Staffing/Training 54 

Resource Evaluation Division 54 

Regulations Published 54 

Commercial Activities (CA) 54 

Separate Reporting Activities (SRA) Study 54 

Mission and Organization Division 55 

Reorganization and Redesignations 55 

Reorganization of US Army Electronics Research 

and Development Command (ERADCOM) 55 

Reorganization of US Army Communications- 
Electronics Command (CECOM) 55 

USAMC Intelligence Materiel 

activity (USAIMA) 55 

Light Helicopter Family (LHX) 56 

PM for amphibious and Watercraft (AWC) 56 

PM for Division Air Defense (DIVAD) 56 

Production Base Modernization 

Activity (PBMA) 56 

PM, Tank. Systems 56 

PM Tactical Airborne Remotely Piloted 

Vehicle/Drone Systems (RPV) 56 

PM, Army Helicopter Improvement 

Program (AlllP) 57 

housing Management Division 57 

Maintenance and Repair (M<*R) 57 

High Cost Quarters 57 

Improvements and Construction 57 

Housin 6 Operations Management 

System (HOMES) 58 

Training 58 

Retail Logistics Division 58 

Excess 58 

AMC logistics Excellence Program (ALEP) 58 

Support Division 60 



xiv 



CHAPTER PAGE 



1 (Cont'd) 

Facilities Division bl 

Minor MCA 61 

MCA 61 

Production Base Support 62 

Ener 6 y Program 63 

Environmental Quality Division 65 

Pollution Abatement Operations Center (PAOC) 65 

Environmental Projects Information 

System (EPIS) - 65 

Compliance With Applicable Environmental 

Quality Standards 65 

Environmental Noise 67 

Installation Compatible Use Zone (ICUZ) 

Program 67 

Installation Restoration 68 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 69 

Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) 70 

Environmental Awards 71 

Environmental Restoration Program (ERP) Funds 71 

Defense Environmental Status Report (DESR) 

Report (RCS DD-M(A)-1485) 71 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 72 

Air Quality 72 

Open Burning/Open Detonation 72 

Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant 72 

Vehicle Emission Control 73 

Water Quality 73 

Environmental Publications 73 

Headquarters Civilian Personnel Office 73 

Reorganization 73 

Policy and Program Development 74 

Adjutant General Division 74 

Army Continuing Education System (ACES) 75 

Reorganization 75 

Redirection of ACES 75 

ACES Services 75 

ACES Program Development 76 

Army Partnership in Education 

(Adopt-A -School) Program Development 76 

AMC Education Network 76 

Travel Section 77 

Top Secret Repository 78 

Alcohol and Drug Abuse 78 

Prevention and Education 78 

Identification and Rehabilitation 78 

Management 78 



xv 



CHAPTER PAGE 



I (Cont'd) 

Headquarters Counseling Service 78 

Child Development Services 79 

Family Child Care 79 

Headquarters Child Care Program 79 

Army Community Service (ACS) Program 79 

Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWk) Section 80 

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel 80 

Provost Marshal Office 80 

Civilian Personnel Division 81 

SES Prioritization and Performance 81 

Interns 81 

Automation ■ 82 

Program Planning, Development and Evaluation S3 

Position Management 84 

Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action 85 

Performance Management 86 

Career Management and Training 87 

AMC Exchange Program (AMCEP) 87 

Logistics and Acquisition Management 

Program (LOGAMP) -- 88 

Army Materiel Command Announcement Distribution 

System (AMCADS) 88 

Training and Development 89 

Manufacturing Training With Industry (TWT) — 89 

Advanced Manufacturing Engineering Studies — 89 
Operations Research Systems Analysis (ORSA) 

Fellowship Program 89 

Brookings - Quality and Productivity in 

American Industry 89 

Action Officer Orientation 89 

Personalized Learning and Training 
Opportunities (PLATO) Computer-Based 

Instruction (CBI) 90 

Staffing -- -— 90 

Employee Management 90 

Command Office of Equal Opportunity 91 

Workshops and EEO Training 91 

Affirmative Action Planning 92 

Complaints Processing 92 

Statistical Data 92 

Special Emphasis Program 94 

Hispanic Employment Program 94 

Federal Women's Program 94 

Military Equal Opportunity Program 94 

Program Management 94 

Staffing --- 94 



xvi 



CHAPTER PAGE 

I (Cont'd) 

Education and Training 96 

Promotions 96 

Military Justice Actions 96 

Information Management — 96 

Readiness 96 

Materiel Release Order (MRO) Rewrite — — 96 

Total Package/Unit Materiel 

Fielding (TP/UMF) 96 

Work Ordering and Reporting Communications 

System (WORCS) 96 

Duplicate Emergency Files (DEF) Program 96 

AMC Program Managers (PM) Secure Voice Net — 97 

CONUS Telephone Modernization (TELMOD) 97 

Test and Prototype of Automated Autodin 

Interface (AAI) 97 

Single Process-Integrated File (SPIF) 97 

Conversion of Data Bank Systems From the 

Control Data Computer 3300 to IBM Plug 

Compatible Machine 97 

Human 97 

ADP Intern Class (ALMSA) 97 

EEO Update at ALMSA 98 

UNIX ADP Intern Program 98 

Productivity Center Planning 

Committee (PCPC) 98 

Army Privacy Program 98 

Materiel 98 

Security Assistance Automation, Army (SA3) — 98 

DA Micro Computer 99 

Maintenance Shop Floor System 99 

Future Development 99 

Multi-Function Workstation (MFWS) 99 

ALMSA Strategic Plan 99 

Supercomputer Network 99 

Information Supply System (ISS) 99 

Army Electronic Mail — 99 

AMC Video Teleconferencing Network 100 

Standard Depot System at Mainz — 100 

Management 100 

Local Area Networks 100 

AMC Data Dictionary 100 

ALMSA Tiger Team 100 

Competition in Contracting Act of 

of 1984 (CICA) 100 

Breakout Savings Report — 101 

Congressional Action on Acquisition of ADPE - 101 



xvii 



CHAPTER PAGE 

I (Cont'd) 

General Ledger by Mission (GLA) 101 

Information Systems Plan (ISP) 101 

Training 101 

Multi-Machine Scheduler (MMS) to Pacific 101 

Computer Literacy Course 101 

II FORCE MODERNIZATION 103 

Force Modernization Programs 103 

Total Package/Unit Materiel Fielding (TP/UMF) 103 

Integrated Logistics Support (ILS) 104 

Army Management Milestone System 104 

ILS Reviews and Analyses 104 

ILS Funding 105 

DA Pamphlet 700-55 105 

System Operational Readiness Review 105 

SMT's Force Modernization Integration Division 105 

Reor 5 anization 105 

Functional Area Assessments (FAA) 106 

DAIG Special Inspection of Force Modernization — 107 
Army Modernization Information 

Memorandum (AMIM) 107 

Stratification Report of Principal Items 107 

Army Materiel Plan Modernization (AMP MOD) 107 

Special Operations Forces 108 

Light Infantry Divisions 108 

Specific Weapon Systems 108 

Bradley Fighting Vehicle Systems 108 

M16A2 -- 109 

MK19 MOD 3 Grenade Machine Gun 109 

Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) 110 

Mobile Protected Gun System (MPGS) armored Gun 

System (AGS) 110 

Advanced Anti-Tank Weapon 

System - Medium (AAWS-M) 111 

Foreign Equipment Upgrade Program 111 

XM-43 Airview NSC Protective Mask 111 

Army Helicopter Improvement Program (AHIP) 111 

CII-47D 112 

T-800-XX-800 Engine - 112 

APACHE (Aii-b4 Advanced Attack helicopter) 112 

Company Level Field Feeding Kitchens (CLFFiC) 113 

bundle JeLivucy System for C-141 Aircraft 113 

Automated Equipment Pipeline Test 113 

Artie Fuel Dispensing Equipment 113 

Assault ilridges 113 

Small Eiup-lacement Excavator 114 

Night Vision lutens Lrication uevices 114 



xv 1 1 1 



CHAPTER PAGE 

II (Cont'd) 

Short Range Defense Command and 

Control (SHORAD C2) 115 

Multiple Launch Rocket System/ Terminal Guidance 

Warhead (MLRS/TGW) 115 

TOW — - 116 

Hellfire Missile System 116 

Patriot Missile 117 

SGT York - — 118 

M1A1 Abrams Tank 118 

155mm Howitzer, M109A2/A3 118 

Improved TOW Vehicles (ITV) 119 

Field Artillery Ammunition Support 

(Vehicle (FAASV) 119 

Hawk 119 

Roland 120 

Dragon 120 

Lance Missile System 120 

Chaparral Missile System — 120 

Nike-Hercules Phase Out 120 

UH60A Black Hawk Helicopter 121 

Army Helicopter Improvement Program (AHIP) 121 

OV-lD/Side Looking Airborne Radar (SLAR) 

Transfer to Europe 121 

Fielding of the RC-12D Improved 

Guardrail V (IGRV) - 122 

EH-60 Quickfix IIB Electronic Countermeasure 

System (Heliborne) 122 

Ch-47 Modernization Program 122 

High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled 

Vehicle (HMMWV) 122 

III MATERIEL ACQUISITION 125 

Organization 125 

Independent Research and Development (IR&D) 130 

Technology Integration Office — 131 

Development, Engineering and Acquisition (DEA) 131 

The RDTE Execution Office 131 

Acquisition Assessment and Policy Division 133 

AMC Streamlined Acquisition Process 133 

NDI/PIP - 135 

Non-Developmental Items 135 

Product Improvement Programs 138 

Materiel Change Management Task Force 139 

Materiel Acquisition Review board 140 

Standards Proliferation 141 

Design to Cost 142 

Affordable Acquisition Approach 142 



XIX 



CHAPTER PAGE 



III (Cont'd) 

Other Accomplishments 143 

Automation Information Division 143 

Space Division 145 

Operations and Support Division 146 

Program Integration Division 146 

Program Management Control System 147 

Selected Acquisition Reports 147 

Unit Cost Reports 148 

Defense Acquisition Executive Summary (DAES) 

Reports 149 

Program Status Reports 149 

Acquisition Management and Reporting 

System (AMARS) 150 

DA Long Range Research Development and 

Acquisition Plan (LRRDAP) 150 

RAM-D 0&S Cost Reduction Program 150 

Logistics Research and Development (Log R6tD) 151 

DEA's Office of the Assistant Deputy Chief of 

Staff for Special Operations Forces — 151 

DCS for Chemical and Nuclear hatters 151 

Product Assurance and Testing (DCSPA&T) 152 

Engineering Division 152 

Environmental Stress Screening (ESS) 152 

RAM-D — — - - - 153 

Aircraft Corrosion Control Program 154 

Root Cause Analysis 154 

Software Quality Assurance 154 

Critical Parts 155 

Standardization 155 

Ammunition Surveillance Program 157 

Quality Assurance Specialist (Ammunition 

(QASAS) Career Program 157 

Ammunition Stockpile Reliability 

Program (ASRP) 157 

Gas Mask Serviceability 159 

European Problems 159 

Ammunition Stockpile Rotation 160 

Hardin Report 160 

Fasteners 160 

Prepositioning Ship Munitions 160 

First Article Testing 161 

Model Plant Initiative 162 

Quick Alert Team 162 

Waivers and Deviations 163 

Unissuable Materiel Visibility Program 163 

Kerwin Board II 163 



xx 



CHAPTER PAGE 

III (Cont'd) 

Contractor Liability 164 

Army Warranty Program 164 

System Evaluation and Test Division 165 

Protection of Information 165 

DCS for Procurement 166 

Competition Advocacy 166 

Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) and 

Other Directives — 166 

Competition Management Office — 168 

Postage Stamp Persuasion 169 

Reverse Engineering 170 

Competition Statistics 170 

Spare Parts 170 

Office for Procurement Policy and Analysis 171 

Functional Area 97 171 

Procurement Workshops in Iberia 172 

Contract Management Review/Acquisition 

Management Review 173 

Business Clearance Reviews 174 

Contract Audit Initiatives 174 

Control of Contractor Indirect 

Costs (Overhead) 175 

Procurement Management Division 176 

Technical Data Rights 176 

Justifications and Approvals 176 

Acquisition Plan Reviews 177 

Additional Workload Data 177 

DCS for Production 177 

Defense Priorities and Allocation System (DPAS) - 178 

DOD Priorities and Allocation Symposium 179 

Production/Resources Base 179 

Precision Optical Components 179 

Germanium Reclamation 179 

Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and 

Materials Shortages 180 

Defense Standardization and Specifications 

Program 180 

DOD Parts Control Program 180 

DepSo-MIS - 181 

Data Management Program 181 

Data Item Descriptions 181 

TDP Acquisition Policy 181 

Technical Information Management System 182 

Technical Data/Configuration Management 

System (TM/CMS) 182 



xxi 



CHAPTER PAGE 

III (Cont'd) 

Digital Storage and Retrieval Engineering 

Data System (DSREDS) 182 

Value Engineering (VE) 183 

Training 183 

Contract Administration 183 

Contractual Performance Shortfalls 183 

Contractors Requiring Special Attention 184 

Production Review Integrated Database 184 

Industrial Preparedness Planning 184 

Training 186 

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business 

Utilization 186 

DCS for Intelligence 188 

IV PROJECT MANAGEMENT 191 

Specific PM Programs 199 

PMs Reporting to HQ AMC 199 

PM TRADE 199 

Funding 203 

PM Army Communicative Systems (Provisional) 203 

PM Aviation Training Devices 203 

PM Ground Forces Training Devices 204 

PM Armor Training Devices 207 

US Army Information Systems Management Activity/ 
Program Manager Army Information Systems 

(USAISMA/PM A1S) 207 

V . MATERIEL READINESS — 209 

DCS for Readiness 209 

Workplace Automation 209 

Concepts and Doctrine Division 209 

AMC Strategic Long -Range Plan (SLRP) 209 

Logistics Systems Program Review 209 

AMCLOG 21 - The AMC Logistics (AMCLOG) 

Mission Area Analysis 210 

Technical Information Management System (TIMS)/ 

Computer Aided Logistic Support (CALS) 211 

Rationalization, Standardization and 

Interoperability (RSI) 211 

Total Army Analysis (TAA) 212 

Preconfigured Unit Load (PUL) — 213 

Logistics Assistance Division 214 

MSC Readiness Directorates 214 

Enhanced Materiel Readiness Reporting 

System (EMRRS) - AR 700-138 — 214 

Readiness Integrated Data Base (RIDB) 215 

Readiness Offensive 215 

Resources to Readiness 215 



XX 1 1 



CHAPTER PAGE 



V (Cont'd) 

Ad Hoc Special Studies 216 

ADEA Mission Changes 216 

Logistic Assistance Program (LAP) 217 

DCS for Supply, Maintenance and Transportation 218 

Reorganization 218 

Maintenance and Integrated Logistic Support 

Division 218 

Division Created 218 

New Equipment Training Plan Automation 219 

Sample Data Collection Program 219 

Oil Analysis Program 220 

Reliability Centered Maintenance 221 

Maintenance Expenditure Limits 222 

Contractor Support of Logistics 222 

AMC Maintenance Board 222 

Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Useful Life 

Program 223 

Electrostatic Discharge 223 

Modification Application Program 223 

Supply and Maintenance Assessment 

Review Team 224 

Equipment Improvement Recommendation (EIR) 

Program 224 

Automated Systems Integration Division 225 

Logistics Systems Review Committee 225 

AMC Near Term Initiatives 226 

Standard Automated Systems Master Plan 227 

Major Item Data Base 227 

Total Army Equipment Distribution Program 227 

War Reserve Automated Process 227 

Logistics Data Network Prototype 228 

Maintenance Interservice Support Management 

Office (MISMO) - - 228 

Depot Operations Division 228 

OMA Funding 228 

Packaging 230 

Transportation 231 

Area Oriented Depot Modernization 234 

NCAD Stock Relocation 234 

Automated Warehousing 235 

Maintenance Shop Floor System 236 

Automated Storage and Retrieval System 236 

Tires 236 

Property Disposal Restraints 237 

Core Logistics 237 

Honduras 237 



xxm 



CHAPTER PAGE 

V (Cont'd 

Republic of Korea 238 

Electronic Data Interchange of Government bills 

of Lading Data 238 

Chemical Agent Resistant Coating 23tf 

Inventory Management Policy Division 239 

Organization 239 

Equipment Release Priority System 239 

Major Item System Mapping 239 

POM/Budget Synchronization of Spares and 

Repair Parts 239 

Subject Matter Assessments 240 

Support List Allowance Card Enhancement 240 

War Reserves Automated Process 240 

Materiel Distribution Management Division 240 

Central Demand Data Base 240 

Excess Materiel/ Returns/Disposal Programs 240 

Special Activities Support 241 

Direct Support System/ Air Lines of 

Communications 242 

Rapid Army Priority Item Distribution 

System II 243 

Cataloging Subject Matter Assessment 243 

AMC Army Master Data File Product 

Enhancement 243 

Serial Number Tracking 245 

Physical Inventory Program Enhancement 245 

Weapon Systems 246 

Command, Control, and Surveillance Systems 

Division 246 

Command and Control Branch 246 

Surveillance Equipment Branch 246 

Aviation and Missile Systems Division 247 

Worldwide Aviation Logistics Conference 247 

Vehicle and Troop Support Division 247 

Rigid Wall Shelter Plan 248 

Commercial Generators 248 

Tugboat Study 248 

Watercraft Program 248 

Automatic AUTODIN Interface 249 

Materiel Distribution Policy Branch 249 

materiel Return/Excess Materiel Program 249 

Executive Director for Conventional Ammunition 249 

Procurement 250 

ICAPP — 251 

Ammunition Procurement Program Instability 256 



xxiv 



CHAPTER PAGE 

V (Cont'd) 

Consolidated Ammunition Working Capital 

Fund (CAWCF) 258 

Logistics 263 

ICAMP 264 

General Recommendations of the ICAMP 264 

Supply 266 

Physical Inventory Study 266 

Demilitarization 269 

Ammunition Specialist Career Program (ASCP) 270 

LOGMARS 271 

Defense Standard Ammunition Computer 

System (DSACS) — 272 

Production Base 273 

McAlester A-Line — 274 

Green Salt 275 

Sustainability Study 276 

SMCA Cost Avoidances 276 

War Reserve Stocks for Korea 278 

TMDE Program 278 

Organizational Data 279 

Management Chapter 279 

TMDE Management Information System (TEMIS) 279 

Review of Equipment Specifications and 

Organizational Requirements for TMDE 280 

Intermediate Forward Test Equipment (IFTE) 280 

Automatic Test Equipment (ATE) Policy 282 

TMDE Support to 3D Infantry Division and XVIII 

Airborne Corps 282 

Test Equipment Modernization (TEMOD) - Accelerated 

Fielding 283 

Publication of TMDE Fact Sheets 284 

Revision of AR 750-43, Test, Measurement and 

Diagnostic Equipment 284 

Revision of AR 750-25, Army Test, Measurement and 

Diagnostic Equipment Calibration and Repair 

Support Program 284 

Cross-Training Within the TMDE Community 284 

Test Equipment Modernization (TEMOD) - Memorandum 

of Agreement 285 

Joint Panel on Automatic Testing (JP-AT) 285 

Organizational Data 286 

TMDE Management Information System (TEMIS) 286 

DA Technical Bulletin 286 

TEMOD 286 

TMDE Requests 287 

TMDE Acquisition Management Briefing 287 



XXV 



CHAPTER PAGE 

V (Cont'd) 

Preferred Items List Improvement 287 

Commerce Business Daily Review 288 

Assistance Visits 288 

AR 750-43 288 

Manufacturer Facilities Visits 288 

US Army TMD£ Support Group (USATSG) 289 

Organizational Data 289 

Program Management Directorate 289 

Operating Budget 289 

Procurement of Calibration Equipment 29U 

JRL Protests on FMS Cases 290 

Environmental Enclosures at Pirmasens 290 

Contracts for TMDE Repairs 290 

Independent Assessment of the Army 

TLD Program 290 

Procurement Tracking System 291 

USATSG Competitive Rate and Small 

Business Awards 291 

Purchase of Texas Instruments Electronic 

Data Terminals 291 

Quality Assurance Office 291 

Operations Office 292 

Revision of AR 750-25 292 

Materiel Acquisition Control 292 

Oplans/Mobilization 292 

System Analysis Office 292 

CALMIS Project 292 

TEMIS Project 293 

CALSIM Project 293 

Calibration Interval 293 

Metrology Directorate 293 

AN/GSM-286 and 287 Transfer Set 

Modernization 293 

International Standardization Organization 

(ISO) Shelter 294 

Foam Dome 294 

Facilities 294 

TMDE Calibration and Repair Facilities Minor 

Renovation ana Alteration Projects 295 

Research and Development 295 

Gas Mask TMDE Support 296 

Laboratory Projects 296 

Torque Measurement 296 

Logistics Directorate 29b 

Equipment Management 296 

Foreign Military Sales 297 



xxvi 



CHAPTER PAGE 

V (Cont'd) 

Publications 297 

New Equipment Training 298 

US Army TMDE Support Activity-CONUS 299 

Internal Calibration Laboratories 299 

Support Consolidations 299 

Personnel 299 

Financial Management 300 

Production 301 

Quality 301 

Facility Improvements 301 

Automation Improvements 301 

Chemical Agent Alarms and Monitors 302 

Area Ionization Kadiation Dosimetry Center — 302 

95th Maintenance Company 302 

Program Manager for Test, Measurement and 

Diagnostic Equipment 303 

Organization 303 

Personnel 303 

Mission Changes 303 

Funding Profile 304 

Force Modernization 305 

Test Support Analysis Model 305 

Intermediate Forward Test Equipment 305 

Electro-Optics Test Facility 307 

Simplified Test Equipment - Expandable 307 

Simplified Test Equipment/Internal Combustion 

Engine - Reprogrammable 308 

Test Equipment Modernization 309 

AN/MSM-105(v)l Test ana Repair Facility, 

Electronic Equipment 309 

AN/MSM-410(v) - Electronic Equipment Test 

Station 310 

Army Test, Measurement, and Diagnostic 

Technology Office 310 

9th Infantry Division 311 

Test Program Sets (TPS) 314 

VI US ARMY SECURITY ASSISTANCE CENTER 315 

Introduction 315 

Central Case Manager 316 

Reorganization on Wheel Concept 317 

Comptroller to Resource Manager 317 

Security Assistance Automation, Army 318 

Facsimile Network 320 

Freight Forwarder Tracking System 320 

L0R/L0A 321 

MIL STRIP /MIL STAMP /MAP AD 321 



XXV 11 



CHAPTER PAGE 

VI (Cont'd) 

Country Programs 322 

Financial Reviews 322 

Emergency/Expedite Impact Shipments 322 

Egypt Army Armament Authority 322 

Denmark - Hawk 323 

France - MLRS 323 

Germany 323 

Israel 324 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization 324 

Netherlands 324 

Norway 324 

Spain 325 

Turkey 325 

Saudi Arabian National Guard Modernization 

Program 325 

Office of the Project Manager 325 

Headquarters Saudi Arabian National Guard 327 

New Unit Training - 2d Brigade HQ 329 

6th CAB 329 

5th Artillery Battery 329 

2d Artillery Battalion HHB and Service 

Battery 330 

7th CAB 330 

Graduated Units - 1st Brigade 330 

Spring FTX 331 

Third Quarter Activity 332 

Fourth Quarter Activities 333 

2d Brigade 333 

Military and Technical Schools (M&TS) 334 

Logistics Base Command 335 

Nonmodernized Unit Training 336 

Light Armored Vehicle Test 336 

Facilities 337 

Procurement and Contracts 337 

King Fahad Hospital 338 

Glossary 339 



xxviii 



CHAPTER I (U) 
RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (U) 

Organization and Mission (U) 

(U) As result of the Headquarters AMC reorganization on 19 
August 1984, the Comptroller Directorate was redesignated the Deputy 
Chief of Staff for Resource Management (DCSRM). This directorate 
consisted of 237 civilians and 7 military. The redesignation resulted 
in the loss of the Management Review and Analysis mission and the 
addition of headquarters Budget, Manpower, Force Development, Program 
Analysis and Evaluation, Mission and Organization, Contract Cost 
Management, DRIS, Family Housing Management Account (FHMA) and Capital 
Investment missions. 

(U) A subsequent reorganization in May 1985 resulted in DCSRM 
gaining the additional missions of Stock Fund, Conventional Ammunition 
Working Capital Fund (CAWCF), Procurement Execution and RDTE Execution 
and losing the Mission and Organization mission. The DCSRM' s 
authorized staffing at close of FY85 was 407 civilians and 20 military. 

(U) The general mission of DCSRM is to achieve effective 
financial and manpower resource management throughout AMC, and to 
maintain operational control over the AMC Management Engineering 
Activity located at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. The DCSRM is responsible 
for financial resource determination, financial control, fund accuracy, 
cost analysis, Planning, Programming and Budgeting System (PPBS), 
internal review, manpower management, productivity management, 
financial systems, and career programs 11 and 26. 

(U) During FY85 the DCSRM established a Programs and Projects 
Office to partially fill the gap created by the transfer of the 
Management Review and Analysis Division to the Deputy for Management 
Analysis. On 1 December 1985, a Systems Management Division was 
established to convey to the resource management community the clear 
intent of DCSRM to focus on "productivity through automation." In 
FY85, DCSRM initiated eight financial management initiatives which are 
addressed in the sections that follow. They are: Obligation Tracking 
System; Management Decision Packages (M— DEP); Zero Base Budgeting 
(ZBB); Consolidation of PARR/COB/ZBB; Implementation of Program 
Integration Capabilities (IPIC); Inflation Tracking; RAM-D Tracking 
Wedge; and Savings Tracking. 



DCRM Historical Submission, FY85. 



Programs and Projects Office (U) 

(U) The Programs and Projects Office was formally established on 
15 April 1985 to partially fill the gap created by the transfer of the 
Management Review and Analysis Division (28 manpower spaces) in the 
August 1984 headquarters restructuring. Several functions and a 
significant level of associated workload that had been performed by 
this division were retained by the DCSRM without resources, and for the 
first two quarters of FY85, the most critical were performed as 
additional duties by individuals scattered throughout the DCSRM without 
regard to existing functional assignments. This approach was discarded 
in favor of the efficient recentralization of those management analysis 
functions that involved assigned AMO-wide resource management 
functions, and those necessary for the internal operation of the DCSRM. 

(U) Four manpower authorizations were transferred from other DCSRM 
elements to establish the Programs and Projects Office. The major 
functions performed in support of AMC-wide resource management involve 
the Resource Management Executive Workshops (RMEW) and the Resource 
Management Evaluation Surveys (RMES). The remaining major functions 
support the internal needs of the DCSRM, which include providing 
management analysis in the areas of AMC Directions, AMC Review and 
Analysis, and AMC Internal Controls Programs, the analysis of DCSRM's 
missions, functions, organizations and policies, as well as the 
effectiveness of its management processes and operations. 

Systems Management Division (U) 

(U) The Systems Management Division was established on 1 December 
1985 in order to convey the clear management intent to focus on 
"productivity through automation" in the resource management community. 

Obligation Tracking System (OTS) (U) 

(U) OTS was established to provide a communication network for 
the reporting of planned versus obligation data from the MSCs to HQ 
AMC. The reporting involved was for five major appropriation 
categories: Procurement Appropriations (PA); Research, Development 
Test and Evaluation (RDTE); Operations and Maintenance, Army (OMA); 
Wholesale Army Stock Fund (ASF); and Conventional Ammunition Working 
Capital Fund (CAWCF). Based on MSC input, the Flash Report of AMC FY86 
obligations could be automatically produced. The system provided a 
means of electronically reporting the major planned contract awards, 
slippages, and reforecast dates. The system used micro-computers at 
each MSC and headquarters, and a computer time sharing service for the 
transmission of data files. 



Programs and Projects Office Historical submission, FY85 



Automated Financial Entitlements System (AFES) (U) 

(U) The Automated Disbursing and Automated Travel System were 
successfully tested at Aviation Systems Command (AVSCOM) and Red River 
Army Depot (RRAD) respectively. The successful prototype of these two 
systems constituted Phase I of a comprehensive AFES. Phase II of the 
AFES would introduce the Automated Commercial Accounts module and Phase 
III would bridge the AFES to the Standard Army Civilian Payroll 
System-Redesign (STARCIPS-R) . When fully implemented, AFES was 
expected to perform the following functions: 

Automate routine calculations in the disbursing and travel 
functions, as well as record and summarize cash and check payments and 
individual cashier and cash control officer transactions. 

Complete, compute and print all data for travel vouchers, 
produce a trip summary report, letter of indebtedness and a record of 
travel payments. 

Maintain and update all disbursing/travel daily and monthly 
management reports. 

Process all debts owed to or by commercial concerns to the 
Government. 

Provide the check cutting capability for STARCIPS-R. 

Program and Budget System (U) 

(U) DCSRM proposed to design a centrally-administered resource 
management data base at HQ AMC to integrate the programming and 
budgeting processes. In support of that effort, a Program and Budget 
Functional Coordinating Group (PBFCG) was established at the direction 
of the Resource Management Systems Review Committee (RMSRC) in 
accordance with AMC-R 18-17, Automatic Data Processing (ADP) Systems 
Configuration Management. 

(U) In an initial planning meeting of the PBFCG held at HQ TACOM 
on 25 April 1985, a prototype automated program and budget system which 
was being developed at TACOM, using a FOCUS data base management 
software, was reviewed as a possible point of departure for developing 
an AMC-wide Standard Programming and Budgeting System. Following this 
meeting the project and charter were approved. 

(U) In a subsequent meeting of the PBFCG at HQ AMC on 23-24 July 
1985, the TACOM system was discussed and found to be adequate, when 
modified, to satisfy the various commands' specific requirements. In 
addition, PBFCG recommended the establishment of a working group, 
consisting of a representative from HQ AMC, CECOM, MICOM, and TACOM to 
develop milestones for a standard AMC Program and Budget System, draft 
documentation to comply with automation management regulations, and 
prepare a strategy for implementing the automated system; such as 
contract, In~house or a combination of both. 



AMC Automated Manpower Management Information System (AAMMIS) (U) 

(U) During FY85 a briefing for developing a standard 
manpower system was presented to the RMSRC. The RMSRC approved the 
concept and a Charter for the Manpower Systems Functional Coordinating 
Group (MSFCG) was established. The MSFCG consisted of members from HQ 
AMC major subordinate commands, TMDE and three installations (Tooele 
Army Depot, Rock Island Arsenal and White Sands Missile Range). The 
primary function of this group was to direct development of a standard 
AMC manpower management system. By 30 September 1985, a draft 
functional description had been developed, potential system interfaces, 
data elements and data definitions were identified. 

(U) AAMMIS would be a vertical, on-line, interactive standard 
DBMS for the force development function and would operate at HQ AMC, MSCs 
and installation and activity/field (I/FOA) element levels. The system 
would provide automation of force development functions not included in 
the Vertical Force Development Management Information System (VFDMIS). 
The major functions to be included in AAMMIS were: Requirements 
Determination and Program/Budget; Allocation, Accounting and Control; 
and Utilization, Strength Reporting, and Qualitative Management. 

Internal Review and Audit Compliance Division (U) 

(U) Summary of Reviews . The Internal Review Audit Guide No. 
84-1 — Materiel Receipts Under Fast Pay Procedures was a summary of 
conditions noted by ten field IRAC offices responding to the guide. 
The 10 audits included a review of 1120 fast pay purchase orders valued 
at approximately $3 million. Receiving documentation was not available 
to either confirm or refute receipt of material for 67 fast pay 
purchase orders. For 12 purchased orders processed by two AMC 
activities, it was determined that $24,184 of materiel was not received 
from contractors demonstrating the need for improvement of internal 
controls over receipt documentation for confirming fast pay direct 
deliveries. Recent revision of the 0MB Circular A-125, "Prompt 
Payment", restricts the use of fast pay procurements and mandates 
Government— wide controls. 

(U) Review of Sponsorship of Conferences . The review was made 
to determine HQ AMC staff elements compliance with DARCOM-R 1-12, 
"Sponsorship of Conferences and use of the DESCOM Conference Site 
Selection Model." IRAC determined that improvements were needed in 
the processes governing the approval and management control of 
conferences. Recommendations were made to change DARCOM— R 1—12 to 
require improved controls in the documentation and approval of 
conferences. In addition, recommendations were also made regarding the 
system development of a new conference site selection model. 



Systems and Management Historical submission, FY85. 



(U) Audit of AMC Corporate Fitness Program . An audit was 
initiated to review action taken during the preaward phase of the 
program. An evaluation of the contractor's proposed cost had not been 
obtained from an appropriate external audit activity. There was a major 
difference between the AMC cost estimate and the contractor's proposed 
cost. IRAC recommended a review of the contractor's pricing proposal be 
obtained from an appropriate external audit activity. 

(U) Review of the AMC Command Morale Support Fund (CMSF) . The 
intent of the review was to verify AMC Command Morale Support Fund 
account balances by testing transactions and other checks to determine 
the accuracy and propriety of the fund's operations. IRAC determined 
that a financial audit of the fund was not required. Beginning in 
FY85, all recorded financial transactions concerning the fund were 
physically moved to the AMC Nonappropriated Fund Central Accounting 
Office, Red River Army Depot. One operational deficiency cited was 
that AMC CMSF did not meet semi-annually as directed by HQDA. In 
response to the audit, DCSPER disestablished the Command Morale Support 
Fund Council on 31 May 1985. 

(U) Audit of Corrective Action on Internal Control Material 
Weaknesses" The review was made to verify that necessary and adequa t e 
measures had been taken to complete planned corrective actions. 
Twenty—four material weaknesses, from nine Deputy Chief's of Staff, 
reported to AMC's 1984 Annual Assurance Statement were reviewed. 
Corrective action had been completed on seven material weaknesses. 
Corrective action was progressing satisfactorily on twelve weaknesses 
and additional action was needed on five weaknesses. Additional action 
was required due to changes in personnel or restructuring of efforts, 
emphasis on some corrective action. Emphasis on some corrective action 
had declined or become less clearly focused. Responsible points of 
contact for the program, in several cases, were not familiar with the 
status of corrective action. It was recommended that additional 
emphasis be given to ensure established milestones were met. 

(U) Review of Contingency Funds of the Secretary of the Army . 
Initiated at the request of the Contingency Fund Custodian, the audit 
was made to determine compliance with AR 37—47, to evaluate the 
internal controls and to ascertain the efficiency and effectiveness of 
operations in controlling and maintaining the contingency funds 
allocated to HQ AMC. Recommendations were made to ensure that all 
requests for funds were approved in advance; consumable items were not 
purchased in excess of function requirements and an inventory 
maintained of alcoholic beverages for official functions; funds were 
provided on a fund cite basis when hosted outside HQ AMC; SFl034s were 
prepared and certified when submitting documentation for payment; 
quarterly reconciliations were made with APG and copies obtained of 
paid vouchers for all FY84 functions not on file. 

(U) Validation of Consolidation and Containerization Point 
In-House Costs at New Cumberland Army Depot . This review, based on a 
Special Request from the DESCOM commander, was performed to evaluate 
the feasibility of the cost savings reported by NCAD. The review 



showed that the cost savings were reasonable; however, there were two 
unresolved Issues. Due to the short suspense, the areas of the 
statement of work and labor and production reporting were not reviewed. 

(U) Audit of the Evaluation of Operating Accounting Systems . 
The review was made to determine the adequacy of the evaluations made 
of AMC's operating accounting systems. Twenty-five operating 
accounting systems were reported in last years annual report to the 
Assistant Comptroller of the Army (ACOA) and the Secretary of the Army. 
Internal Review Offices audited eight of the 25 operating systems to 
determine if evaluations were made in accordance with ACOA guidance. It 
was found that of the eight operating accounting systems reviewed, six 
had the evaluation made as required by the ACOA. However, only two of 
the six systems evaluated were considered to have adequate 
documentation supporting the evaluation. Two system proponents, as of 
the time of the audit, had not accomplished the evaluation because they 
were unsure of their evaluation responsibilities. There was inadequate 
documentation because system proponents did not properly record their 
evaluations with workpapers and detailed explanations as required by 
ACOA instructions. Action was taken by subordinate commands to correct 
problems identified during the course of the reviews. Actions included 
obtaining supporting documentation and complying with ACOA instruction. 
Also, HQ AMC Finance and Accounting Division was to prepare a plan of 
action to be performed during FY86, which would ensure that evaluation 
of all AMC operating accounting systems were completed and documented 
adequately. 

(U) Audit of Special Mission Funds . Two reviews were done to 
determine if anti— deficiency violations investigations were warranted. 
The circumstances surrounding these situations were reviewed and 
corrective funding adjustments were recommended to the HQ Finance and 
Accounting Office. 

(U) Audit Guide - Computer-Assisted Reconciliation of 
Unliquidated Obligations (Installation Supply) . A guide was prepared 
by the MICOM IRAC Office for use by the AMC field activities in 
developing computer— assisted techniques for their audits. The 
widespread automation of record keeping necessitated the development 
and use of these techniques for detecting errors and potential fraud. 
The guide was furnished to all AMC internal review offices. 

(U) Use of Defense Property Disposal Service . An audit was 
conducted to evaluate the adequacy of management accountability and 
control of items retrieved from Defense Property Disposal Office. The 
audit was conducted at twelve subordinate activities. The audit showed 
that AMC was generally making good use of the PDO and accountability 
and control of items retrieved was adequate. 

(U) Acquisition and Procurement . The Audit Trends and 
Management Internal Control Review Guide Supplement was prepared as part 
of a continued effort to provide managers with a useful tool for 
conducting internal control reviews. Lessons learned that surfaced 
subsequent to the publication of the Acquisition and Procurement 



manager's guide in October 1982, were incorporated in this supplement. 
The supplemental information included small purchases, contract 
administration, sole-source contracts and contractor responsibility. 

(U) Manager's Guide - Foreign Military Sales (FMS) . This guide 
provides managers with a synopsis of audit trends in the FMS area. It 
is not an all inclusive document on FMS; however, it does provide a 
historical view of areas defined as sensitive by the audit community 
which required redefinition, redesign and rethinking in support of the 
Army's FMS program. The guide included a checklist to assist managers 
in evaluating their policies and procedures regarding the reported 
problem area. 

(U) Managers Guide - Travel and Transportation . This guide 
provides managers a synopsis of audit trends in the travel and 
transportation area. A key part of the guide is a checklist which is 
designed to help managers to ask pertinent questions that should be 
addressed within their organizations in light of lessons learned from 
audit reports in these areas. In addition, the checklist could be used 
as a guide for conducting internal control review. 

(U) Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) Report Follow-Up 
System . AMCRM-IA developed an automated data base to track the 
process of dispositioning DCAA audit reports. The data base showed 
status of open reports, including target dates for disposition. It was 
also used to help identify problem areas and verify semi*-annual status 
reports prior to release to DA. 

(U) Audit Alert Network: Access to Tape Libraries . During an 
audit of Computer Operation, USAAA found that access to tape libraries 
was not controlled. Some tapes were stored outside the libraries, 
tapes were not labeled and inventories were not made as frequently as 
required. This finding was disseminated to various commands with 
AMCCOM, CECOM, DESCOM, TACOM, and TECOM reporting to have the similar 
problem at their commands. 

(U) Unobligated Funds/Contingent Liabilities . A USAAA audit of 
the unobligated funds/contingent liabilities for the procurement 
appropriations disclosed that excess funds were not identified and 
reprogramed on a timely basis. Reviews made by comptroller personnel 
were not in sufficient detail to ensure that the rationale and 
computations used to estimate contingent liabilities were adequate. 
Although USAAA found this problem at TACOM and AMCCOM, the commands which 
were queried through the Audit Alert Network all reported a negative 
reply. 

(U) Daily Audit Activity Report . As part of the Command 
Initiative to keep the CG informed of what was happening in the audit 
arena, a report (daily) was initiated for his use. The Daily was 
distributed to the Deputy Commanding Generals (DCG) as well as other 
Command Group personnel. The CG and DCGs used the daily as a vehicle 
for querying the functional offices as well as the office of origin for 
insight into problems. 



Cost Analysis Division (U) 

(U) Extensive effort was placed on review and validation of 
weapon system cost estimates including Baseline Cost Estimates, 
Independent Cost Estimates, and Cost and Operational Effectiveness 
Analyses. Input and support were provided for the Operational Baseline 
Cost Estimate; Cost Research; Total Risk Assessing Cost Estimate for 
Production; Reliability, Availability, Maintainability and Durability 
(RAM-D); the Cost Analysis Workload Survey; the Cost Analysis 
Personnel Profile; and the Economic Analysis Pamphlet. 

Operational Baseline Cost Estimate (OBCE) (U) 

(U) Plans were continued for implementation of an automated OBCE 
throughout AMC. An AMC Cost Analysis Chiefs' meeting was held at the 
Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama on 15-16 November 1984. The 
Cost Analysis Chiefs reviewed the OBCE program, command-wide 
implementation plans, and status of each. Hardware and OBCE software 
were demonstrated and future program enhancements were proposed and 
discussed. Strategies for accelerated acquisition (including 
applicability review of the Army microcomputer-buy hardware) were 
considered and discussed with other AMC organizations, HQDA, and 
personnel of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
Financial Management (ASA(FM)). In September 1985, a System Decision 
Paper and acquisition approval request package was completed by the 
Deputy Chief of Staff for Resource Management and the Deputy Chief of 
Staff for Information Management for submission to the Comptroller of 
the Army for review and approval by the ASA(FM). 

RAM-D Funding Wedge (U) 

(U) HQDA directed an initiative to both reduce RAM-D driven 
Operating and Support (O&S) costs by 50 percent and at the same time 
reduce mission capable (NMC) rates by 50 percent by FY91 . Subsequent 
HQDA guidance included 50 percent reduction of support manpower as an 
additional goal of the program. The RAM-D reduction initiative would 
be applied to ten designated weapon systems. A concept paper for 
capturing RAM-D O&S savings and for monitoring those savings through 
the budget process was integrated into the AMC guidance. The ten PMs 
selected for RAM-D reduction were directed to develop an operating and 
support cost baseline and to identify savings for each weapon system in 
accordance with the instructions. 

Cost Research (U) 

(U) The FY83 project which developed a methodology to predict 
first unit production cost in conjunction with CECOM was completed. 
Two FY84 contractor supported Cost Research projects for developing 
data base structuring and data base expansion, in conjunction with 
AVSCOM and ERADCOM (LABCOM) respectively, were also completed. Four 
FY85 projects developing missile system data base related products were 
completed in conjunction with MICOM. At the end of FY85, efforts were 



underway at AMCCOM, CECOM and TACOM to develop new or extended data bases 
(I.e., Armament R&D, Test Program Sets (TPS), and Wheeled and Tracked 
Vehicles). Efforts on two software cost estimating projects were on-going 
at AVSCOM and CECOM. A project on production tooling was also underway 
at CECOM. The end product for each on*-going project was projected to be 
delivered during FY86. A prioritized list of nine AMC Cost Research 
projects for FY86 was submitted to HQDA requesting approval and funding. 

Operating and Support Cost Management Information System (0&SCMIS) (U) 

(U) On 15 February 1985, management responsibility for the 
O&SCMIS project was transferred to HQDA. 

Total Risk Assessing Cost Estimate for Production (TRACE-P) . (U) 

(U) TRACE-P was a method of estimating and budgeting the funds 
required for the technological risks during production. Production 
risk funds were appropriated in FY85 for the M833 Projectile and the 
M1A1 Abrams Tank. Production risk funds were in the FY86 President's 
Budget for the M833 and the Remotely Piloted Vehicle (RPV). The 
FY87-91 POM contained production risk funds for the RPV. During FY85, 
estimates were prepared for the PLRS-JTIDS HYBRID (PJH), the Simplified 
Test Equipment Expandable (STE*-X), and the Intermediate Forward Test 
Equipment (IFTE). However, because of funding reductions, their 
TRACE-P requirements were not included in the FY87-91 POM. 

(U) Cost Analysis Award . The AMC Cost Analysis Award, established 
on 26 March 1981, is awarded annually by the Commanding General, AMC, on 
an individual or group basis for outstanding accomplishments by AMC 
personnel involved in the Cost Analysis Program. One or more awards 
could be granted for excellence in Cost Estimating/Cost Analysis, 
Review and Validation, Research, Methodology and Data, and Economic 
Analysis. 

(U) AMC Cost Analysis Workload Survey . Each MSC Cost Analysis 
Office (CAO) was surveyed to assess the professional manyears available 
and the percentage of the time spent on activities within their 
functional area for the period 1 October 1983 to 30 September 1984. 
The results of the survey were summarized to provide a command 
assessment of workload emphasis, and a compendium of the workload data 
was distributed to each MSC in April 1985. 

(U) AMC Cost Analysis Personnel Profile . A consolidated AMC 
Cost Analysis Personnel Profile was prepared with data as of 1 October 
1984. The profile presented a compilation of each CAO and PMO (having 
cost analysis positions) showing professional spaces and total TDA 
spaces in the CAOs, professional spaces in the PMOs, and distribution 
of spaces by job series, grade, and female/minority representation. 
Upon completion, the profile was distributed to all offices represented 
in the report. 



(U) Economic Analysis Pamphlet . An AMC pamphlet entitled 
"Economic Analysis: Concepts and Methodologies," dated July 1985, was 
distributed throughout the command. The document addressed the 
economic analysis process, cost estimating, benefit analysis, economic 
analysis techniques, format preparation and provided the user with a 
sample economic analysis. A steering committee was chaired by Cost 
Analysis within the DCSRM while AMCCOM was designated the lead command 
for coordination and preparation of the document. 

(U) Warranties . Section 2403, Title 10 of the United States 
Code, required that DOD obtain certain types of warranties in contracts 
awarded after 1 January 1985, for the acquisition of weapon systems. 
There was an exemption provision that a waiver could be granted by 
showing that the warranty was not cost effective. The effort was 
initiated by AMC and resulted in a warranty cost effectiveness model. 
This model was briefed by AVSCOM to the DCSRM and Production Assurance 
and Test during September 1985. The model was approved for 
finalization and distribution as an available AMC tool for warranty 
evaluation. A warranty model user's guide was expected to be completed 
by the end of CY85. 

(U) Production Base Support (PBS) . A total of 161 PBS projects 
(including sub-projects) submitted for the FY87 Budget were reviewed 
relative to the proper application of supporting economic analysis (EA) 
documentation. Of the 161 projects, 88 percent (141) met the 
requirements of AR 11-28 and of those, 99 percent (139) were found to 
have acceptable EA application. The projects found deficient were 
returned to the submitting directorate for initiation of corrective 
action and ultimate resolution was achieved. 

(U) Cost Analysis for Decision Making (CADM) . ALMC presented 
four resident CADM classes during FY85, training 57 AMC employees. 
This office provided extensive review and coordination of student 
acceptance into the course in order to assure maximum training of Cost 
Analysis personnel. 

(U) Cost Estimate for Alternative Decision Packages (ADPs) . 
This effort was initiated in FY84 to support the FY 87-91 program 
objective memorandum (POM). All cost estimates planned for completion 
by 31 October 1984 were provided to DA on schedule. 

Baseline Cost Estimates (BCE) and BCE Reassessments (U) 

(U) BCEs normally were prepared by PM offices and reviewed and 
coordinated by the cost analysis offices at MSCs and HQ AMC. BCEs formed 
the basis for the audit trail/track throughout the life cycle of a 
weapon system. Reassessments were made at major decision points and 
tracked to the initial BCE. The following systems required BCEs or 
reassessments during FY85: 



10 



RPV 

PERSHING II 

CH-47 

PATRIOT 

TOW II 

MSE 

QUICKFIX 

TRAILBLAZER 

SGT YORK 

COPPERHEAD 



Completed 



STINGER 

BLACK HAWK 

HELLFIRE 

M1/M1A1 

SHORAD C2 

GUARDRAIL 

AFATDS 

SINCGARS 

SCOTT 

HMMWV 



In Process 



AHIP 

AAH 

MLRS BASIC 

ADDS 

AAWS 

CUCV 

BFVS 

MCS 

HEMTT 



LHX 

MLRS/TGW 

ATACMS 

JSTARS 

NAVSTAR 

SCOTT 

GPS 

MCS 



Independent Cost Estimates (ICE) (U) 

(U) DOD policies governing the materiel acquisition process 
required an ICE for each major weapon system undergoing a milestone 
review by the Defense Systems Acquisition Review Council (DSARC). 
Additionally, selected systems required an ICE for systems undergoing a 
review by the Army Systems Acquisition Review Council (ASARC). The ICE 
was used to assess the reasonableness of the project manager's estimate 
of the cost resources required to complete the program. ICE activity 
during FY85 included the following systems: 



Completed 



In-Process 



MSE 

AHIP 

PERSHING II 

PATRIOT 

AAH 

TOW II 

AAWS 

BLACK HAWK 

HELLFIRE 

SHORAD C2 



SCOTT 

SHORAD C2 

LHX 

ATACMS 

MLRS-TGW 

GPS 

ADDS 



11 



MCS 

SCOTT 

M1/M1A1 

COPPERHEAD 

SINCGARS 

AFATDS 

ADDS 

BFVS 

JSTARS 



Cost and Operational Effectiveness Analyses (COEA) (U) 

(U) Coordination with Comptroller of the Army, TRADOC, MSCs, and 
the PM offices was required for the following COEAs : 



Completed 



In-Process 



Light Anti-Armor System 

Elevated Target Acq. Systems 

MLRS-SADARM 

AAWS-M 

AAWS 

BFVS . 

SADARM 

M9 ACE 

MELIOS 

BRAT 

ETAS 

PLS 

120mm Mortar 



Anti"helicopter Study 

LHX 

JATM 

TEXS 

ATACMS 

SHORAD C2 

JSTARS 

LADS 

CIS 

AGS 

GPS 



Selected Acquisition Reports (SAR), Unit Cost Reports (UCR), 
Supplemental Contractor Cost Reports (SCCR) and Defense Acquisition 
Executive Summary Reports (DAES) (U) 

(U) These reports were standard, comprehensive, summary status 
reports on major defense systems, prepared for management within the 
DOD and for submission to Congress and other government agencies. They 
were required for all programs designated as major defense systems by 
the Secretary of Defense and summarized estimates of technical 
schedules, quantity, and cost information. They were normally prepared 
by the project manager offices and reviewed and coordinated by the 
major subordinate command cost analysis offices and HQ AMC. The 
following major systems were included in the reporting during FY85: 



12 



PERSHING II AAH 

STINGER CH-47 

BLACK HAWK TOW II 

AHIP RPV 

PATRIOT AS AS 

MLRS SINCGARS 

HELLFIRE COPPERHEAD 

BFVS SGT YORK 

ADDS JTIDS 
SHORAD C2 
155mm HIP 
Ml /Ml 

ASARC/DSARC Reviews (U) 

(U) Cost estimates were developed and reviewed for support of 
major system decision reviews by the ASARC and DSARC for SHORAD C2; 
JSTARS; AHIP; AAWS-M; and MLRS-TGW 4 

Contract Cost Performance Division (U) 

General (U) 

(U) On 15 October 1984 the Contract Cost Management Division was 
renamed the Contract Cost Performance Division, and responsibility for 
the Division was transferred from the DCS for Procurement and 
Production to DCS Resource Management. The decision was influenced by 
a July 1984 study aimed at standardizing the procurement organizations 
of the major subordinate commands, and of an AMC White Paper, Weapon 
System Costing, Budgeting, Pricing, and Contracting , June 1984. The 
decision was based on the desire to align the Division more closely 
with Cost Analysis, and also on the fact that several major 
subordinate commands already had aligned these missions and functions 
with the cost analysis organization. During most of the year, the 
Division was without three of its nine authorized action personnel due 
mostly to the slowness of the personnel recruiting and replacement 
process. 

(U) At the direction of DCSRM, the MSCs which were not already 
aligned with cost analysis (except ERADCOM) were changed. They were 
AVSCOM, AMCCOM and TROSCOM. ERADCOM, in process of becoming LABCOM, 
postponed this action. 

Progress in Applying Cost/Schedule Control System Criteria (C/SCSC) (U) 

(U) The number of accepted implementations of C/SCSC, involving 
AMC-led reviews, increased by 27 during FY85 to a total of 274. There 
were 24 more applications of C/SCSC in various stages of the 
implementation process at the end of FY85. 



Internal Review and Audit Compliance Historical submission, FY85. 



13 



(U) With the Air Force member as coordinator of the Performance 
Measurement Joint Executive Group (PMJEG), the Division Chief attended 
four meetings of the PMJEG during the year. Representatives of the 
three Services, Office Secretary of Defense (OSD), Defense Contract 
Administration Services (DCAS), Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) 
and National Security Agency (NSA), considered various matters of 
tri-Service policy and implementation. On 1 July, the function of 
PMJEG Coordinator rotated to the Navy. 

(U) In May 1985 a tri-Service conference of C/SCSC Review 
Directors was held with the objective of obtaining more uniform 
application of C/SCSC to contractor management systems. Many issues 
were discussed relative to interpretation of published guidance. 

(U) In a continuing dialogue with industry, AMC actively 
participated in two meetings with the National Security Industrial 
Association (NSIA). On 16 April the meeting was with the C/SCSC 
Working Group of the Management Systems Subcommittee of the Procurement 
Committee, and on 21 May the meeting was with the full Management 
Systems Subcommittee. The meetings produced better mutual 
understanding and the resolution of most of the problems. 

Independent Assessment of Major Contracts with Cost Risk (U) 

(U) Contract Performance Analysis Branch prepared monthly an 
independent analysis of cost and schedule performance and final cost 
estimates on major acquisition contracts with cost risk. The results 
were presented to the Deputy Commanding General for Research, 
Development and Acquisition (DCGRDA). 

(U) In addition, the contract cost portion of the following 
reports was reviewed when each was submitted to HQ AMC: Program 
Management Control System (PMCS) Monthly Status Reports, Selected 
Acquisition Reports, Unit Cost Reports, and Defense Acquisition 
Executive's Summary Reports. 

(U) Training . Continuing support for four C/SCSC-related 
training courses consisting of soliciting and screening applicants, 
reviewing course content, and presentations (Including panel 
participation) during classes. The four courses were Contractor 
Performance Measurement at Defense Systems Management College (DSMC), 
C/SCSC and Analysis of Cost Performance Reports at Air Force Institute 
of Technology (AFIT), and Managing with Contractor Performance 
Measurement Data at Army Management Engineering Training Activity 
(AMETA). 

(U) Four-hour blocks of instruction in Contract Cost Performance 
Measurement and Reporting were presented to four classes of the 
Materiel Acquisition Management course at the Army Logistics Management 
Center (ALMC). 



14 



(U) AMC personnel gave two presentations and participated in two 
panels at an industry Cost/Schedule Systems Conference held in November 
1984 in Washington DC and in May 1985 at Los Angeles, California. Each 
conference was attended by more than 100 industry representatives. 

Finance and Accounting Division (U) 

(U) A major change in the handling of customer orders was 
directed by OSD to be effective for FY85. Since the change was not 
received by DA until 30 September 1985, DA made a summary level 
adjustment to the 30 September 1985 reports and AMC activities would 
begin efforts to identify specific adjustments to be completed by 31 
December 1985. The multi-year appropriation customer order would be 
handled like one year order. All orders would be written down to the 
executed amount. 

Program Execution (U) 

(U) AMC FY85 obligations were $33.1 billion against an obligation 
plan of $35.1 billion and released program of $40.3 billion. FY85 
obligations represented 94.2 percent of planned obligations and 82.1 
percent of released program. 

(U) AMC closed FY85 $2.0 billion short of forecast. A good part 
of the shortfall ($1.0 billion) resulted from factors outside the AMC 
sphere of influence, such as congressional decision on Mobile 
Subscriber Equipment and Multi*-Launch Rocket System, OSD program holds 
on Army Helicopter Improvement Programs, termination of SGT York 
program and customer orders cancellation. Certain other contract 
requirements were intentionally held up either by the commanders or by 
the headquarters for good business sense reasons. Specifics included 
redoing solicitations to maximize competition and comply with 
acquisition streamlining initiatives, as well as finalizing contracts 
on a sound business basis. 

(U) Consolidation of DESCOM Accounting Operations . The 
Department of the Army (DA) announced to Congress on 24 April 1985, the 
regionalization of finance and accounting support operations by 
consolidating Finance and Accounting Offices (FAO) at Sharpe and Sierra 
Army Depots into the Sacramento Army Depot FAO. In addition, the FAO 
at Corpus Christi Army Depot was consolidated into the Red River Army 
Depot FAO. 

(U) The Sacramento consolidation was successfully accomplished on 
1 September 1985, while the Red River consolidation was effectively 
implemented 1 October 1985. Through consolidation, 54 spaces were 
saved and made available for use at the discretion of the depot 
commanders in direct areas. 



Contract Cost Performance Division Historical submission, FY85. 



15 



(U) Removal of RDTE Activities from Army Industrial Fund 
Financing . By OSD direction, the AIF was removed as a means of 
prefinancing operations at three AMC RDTE activities. Beginning on 1 
October 1984, the operations of Harry Diamond Laboratories (HDL) and 
Army Materials and Mechanics Research Center (AMMRC) were converted to 
direct RDTE financing; on 1 October 1985, a similar conversion took 
place at the US Armament Research and Development Center (ARDC). 

(U) Beginning with March 1983, In-Process Reviews (IPR) were held 
quarterly, reviewing the progress made during the previous quarter and 
the DECAP process, AMC and DA representatives were able to offer 
assistance to solve the majority of the DCAP related problems raised by 
HDL, AMMRC and ARDC. In October 1985 ARDC successfully decapped the 
AIF and was operating under the RDTE appropriation. 

(U) Army Materiel Command Division (AMCD) (Wholesale) Army Stock 
Fund (ASF) Cash Management . AMCD Treasury cash balance on 30 September 
1985 of $568.3 million was an increase of $198.7 million during FY85. 
The increase was comprised of net cash allocations of $215.3 million, 
offset by negative net cash from operations of $16.3 million and a 
small decrease in FMSO-I advances of $.3 million. Treasury cash was 
traced in FY85 by three cash breakouts — operating, inventory 
augmentation and mobilization. These breakouts were related to the 
funding breakouts. The DA norm of 12 days of average treasury 
disbursements was the criteria used to control operating cash. The DA 
established norm for FY85 was $58.9 million. An excess in operating 
cash in FY85 resulted in a $100.0 million cash allocation return to DA 
in March 1985. In April 1985 the AMCD received a cash allocation of 
$102.3 million which was transferred through the ASF to 0MA. 

(U) Cash allocations of $154.9 million were received for recorded 
augmentation obligations and $59.5 million for recorded mobilization 
obligations during the fiscal year. 

(U) As a result of these transactions, AMC ended FY85 with 
$286.5 million operating cash, $126.9 million augmentation cash and 
$154.9 million mobilization cash. The operating cash balance (as 
adjusted for allocations due for September augmentation and 
mobilization recorded obligations) was approximately $165.8 million in 
excess of the 12 day DA norm. It was anticipated that DA would 
withdraw the operating cash during the first half of FY86. 

(U) Conventional Ammunition Working Capital Fund (CAWCF) . 
CAWCF continued to fulfill its purpose during this fourth year of 
operations. Eighty— five percent of the funds available was obligated 
during FY85 as compared with 82 percent in FY84 and 60 percent in FY83. 
Sales increased 14 percent during FY85 over FY84. Procurement costs 
continued to decline while the general economic price level continued 
to increase slightly. 

(U) Reemphasi8 on Effective Obligation Procedure . A HQ AMC 
workshop/study group was formed to address obligation procedures. The 
group reviewed Audit Reports, problems from the field, and regulatory 



16 



changes that impacted obligation procedures. The group prepared a 
final directive which contained expanded definitions, clarification of 
regulatory interpretations, clarification of responsibilities, and 
reidentif ication of obligation problems. The thrust of the directive 
was to involve MSCs in continuously monitoring significant deobligation 
which required corrective action. It was perceived that improvement 
had to be realized in the obligation procedure to prevent possible 
reductions in programs. 

(U) Upgraded Funds Control System . AMCRM-FOF designed a new 
automated fund control system, which replaced the largely manual system 
previously in use. The system was operated on a Plexus P/60 and was a 
real-time system which simultaneously checked funds availability, 
updated account balances and created a hard copy funding document. The 
system also operated in an interactive mode with the Budget Division 
which permitted loading of data by the program manager and approval by 
Finance and Accounting without the necessity of hard copy program 
documents. The software was developed by Service Management 
Corporation, using the INFORMIX Database Management System with 
necessary C programming modifications. 

(U) Army Charge Card Test . On 5 August 1985, HQ AMC began 
implementation of the Army Charge Card Program as one of the test 
sites. The program involved issuance of a Diners Club Card to frequent 
travelers, who would use the card for hotel accommodations, car 
rentals, and other expenses where the card was accepted; consequently, 
the traveler's per diem was cut to 40 percent instead of 80 percent. 
Originally, the test was limited to supervisory and military personnel 
since DA failed to obtain national union concurrence. However, the 
test was expanded on 12 November 1985 to include bargaining unit 
employees as well. The Charge Card Program was expected to reduce 
outstanding travel advances, reduce workload in the FAO, and provide 
management reports which would aid in contracting for government 
service. 

Establishment of US Army Information System Command (U) 

(U) Accounting procedures for funding the transfer of personnel 
and spaces to USA Information Systems Command (ISC) were issued to the 
appropriate field activities and Directors of Information Management 
(DOIM) by the Policy and Procedures Branch Finance and Accounting 
Division on 26 September 1985. These procedures were an interim 
measure until FY87, at which time ISC would receive direct funding for 
those spaces transferred. 



Finance and Accounting Division AHR submission, FY85. 



17 



Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Program Budget (U) 

Organization (U) 

(U) Reorganization of the AMC Comptroller organization into DCSRM 
caused significant changes in the area of program and budget. These 
changes necessitated the establishment of the Office of the Assistant 
Deputy Chief of Staff for Program Budget. This office was assigned the 
mission of developing, maintaining and disciplining the resource 
management process (planning, programing, budgeting and execution 
system (PPBES) for AMC to ensure that available resources are planned 
and programed for optimum utilization. 

(U) Specific organizational changes involved transfer of program 
execution for the Procurement Appropriations and RDTE to the Office of 
the Deputy Chief of Staff for Resources Management (ODCSRM) from 
Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Supply, Maintenance and 
Transportation (ODCSSM) and Office, Chief of Staff for Development, 
Engineering and Acquisition (ODCSDEA), respectively. Program and 
budget responsibilities were also transferred from ODCSSM for the Army 
Stock Fund, PA Secondary Spares Program, and CAWCF. These functions 
along with PA execution constituted the Procurement Appropriation and 
Army Stock Fund Division. The Program Analysis and Evaluation 
Directorate was abolished with long range planning being transferred to 
the ODCS for Readiness. Policy function was transferred to the ODCSRM 
Program Budget and Funding Policy Division, and the remainder of the 
directorate was consolidated into the Program Integration Division. 
The Program Budget and Funding Policy Division was constituted from a 
branch of the Operations and Maintenance, Army (OMA) Budget Division 
and the elements of PA&E discussed above. OMA Budget Division less 
Policy Branch as discussed above was assigned the AMC Headquarters 
Budget Office and the Army Family Housing account. 

(U) Concurrent with the reorganization several initiatives were 
undertaken as a result of direction from both the Commanding General, 
AMC, and HQDA. These initiatives include Zero Base Budgeting (ZBB), 
Management Decision Package (M—DEP), program analysis and resource 
review (PARR) /command operating budget (COB) consolidation and 
Integration of Program Integration Capabilities (IPIC). These and 
other initiatives are discussed in greater detail in each of the 
Program Budget Division/Office narratives. 

Program Budget and Funding Policy Division (U) 

(U) Zero Base Budgeting . In April, General Thompson tasked the 
Deputy Chief of Staff for Resource Management to implement Zero Base 
Budgeting (ZBB) within the Army Materiel Command during FY86 to improve 
core visibility. A ZBB Working Group was established at HQ AMC on 16 
April 1985. Results of the working group were briefed to DCSRM and MSC 
comptrollers. Phase I of the ZBB concept implementation addressed only 
the FY86 Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA) Program 7S, which is 
approximately half of the OMA core. Key concepts were used of (1) 



M-DEP; (2) functional breakouts; (3) increments; and (4) prioritization 
of functions under ZBB procedures. The first ZBB submission was due to 
HQ on 30 September 1985. 

(U) Implementation of Program Integration Capabilities (IPIC) 
Task Force" The IPIC task force was formed on 26 August 1985 with the 
objective of developing a system to assure integrated, balanced 
programs were presented to HQDA and to allow AMC leadership to approve 
before DA position was locked. 

(U) The Army Plan (TAP)/Macroanalysis Process . The 
macroanalysis process was initiated by HQDA to try to outline balanced 
program guidance for TAP in view of known sizable total obligation 
authority reductions in the program years. The Chief of Staff, Army 
invited each 4 star to participate. The theme of the CG's letter was 
to preserve overall Army balance in a decrement environment. 

(U) Program Objective Memorandum (POM) Control Working Group 
(PCWG) . Initiated the POM Control Network (POMNET) to enable AMC to 
interface with HQDA during POM development. DCSRM managed and led the 
PCWG, which resulted in better AMC interface with the HQDA functional 
panels and Program Budget Committee during POM building. 

RDTE Execution Office (U) 

Future Year Operations (U) 

(U) The FY87-91 RDTE Program . The USAMC funded FY87-91 Defense 
Plan as reflected in the May 1985 Project Listing is discussed below. 

FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 

4610285 5130769 5170496 5557575 6708682 

(U) Based on AMC's POM to Budget Issues and the Deputy Chief of 
Staff for Research, Development and Acquisition, Department of the 
Army, review of the AMC program, the following changes were made: 



FY87* 


FY88 


FY89 


FY90 


FY91 


886912 


5309658 


5227396 


5537842 


6238467 



(U) The FY87 program was to be presented to Congress in January 
1986. 

Program Execution (U) 

(U) The total direct RDTE FY85 program released to AMC as of 30 
September 1985 was $3,531.1 million of which $3,303.0 million was 
obligated for an overall AMC obligation rate of 93.5 percent. This 
compares quite favorably with the Department of the Army (DA) 
obligation goal of 90.0 percent for the RDTE appropriation. 



19 



(U) Through the Scorecard Reporting System, this headquarters 
continuously assessed the progress of each command toward meeting a 
time-phased obligational plan established by the subcommand and/or 
activity. 

(U) The following chart reflects the direct FY85 program and 
percent of obligation achieved for each major subordinate command and 
the separate activities and HQ AMC as of 30 September 1985. 

Command Released Program ($M) % Obligated 

AMCCOM $557.9 94.2 

AVSCOM 433.7 93.3 

TROSCOM 144.4 98.7 

ERADCOM 479.9 96.4 

CECOM 360.1 99.1 

MICOM 388.1 86.7 

TACOM 227.3 81.8 

TECOM 403.0 99.6 

Other AMC 536.7 90.7 



3,531.1 93.5 

(U) This headquarters also closely monitored the disbursement 
rates of the RDTE activities in an effort to assess compliance with the 
principles of incremental funding. The overall AMC FY85 disbursement 
of 50 percent met the goal established by DA. The actual rates for the 
activities are shown in the following table: 

Command % Disbursed 

AMCCOM 47 

AVSCOM 41 

TROSCOM 68 

ERADCOM 46 

CECOM 49 

MICOM 43 

TACOM 29 

TECOM 75 

Other 54 

Procurement Execution Stock Fund Division (U) 

(U) The Procurement Execution and Stock Funds Division was 
established in DCSRM to perform the functions transferred from Deputy 
Chief of Staff for Supply, Maintenance and Transportation (DCSSMT). 
Responsibility for Army Stock Fund, PA-2, Conventional Ammunition 
Working Fund Program, Procurement Army (PA) Major item Execution, and 
Base Level Commercial Equipment (BCE) was transferred from Deputy Chief 
of Staff for Supply, Maintenance and Transportation to the Deputy Chief 
of Staff for Resource Management. 



Scorecard Reporting System (RCS AMCDE-134). 



20 



Budget Division (U) 

Status FY85 Operations and Maintenance, Army (OMA) Funds (U) 

(U) With an obligation plan and funding availability of $5,412 
billion, total actual obligations at yearend were $5,411 billion or 
99.98 percent. Although the program increased in FY85 as compared with 
FY84, severe funding constraints in P7S (Supply) required a DA approved 
reprogramming action of $16.1 million from P7M (Maintenance) in the 4th 
Quarter. This belated action impacted on the timely execution of the 
command's obligation plan. 

(U) In July 1985, ERADCOM was reorganized and redesignated 
LABCOM, incorporating the Army Materiel and Mechanics Research Center 
(AMMRC), the Army Research Office (ARO) and the corporate laboratories. 
Concurrently, the Intelligence Materiel Development Support Office 
(IMDSO) was redesignated the Intelligence Materiel Activity (IMA), a 
Class II activity, reporting directly to HQ AMC. Appropriate funding 
realignments were made to accommodate these organizational changes. 

(U) The level of Base Operations funding support improved from 
the depressed FY84 program of $180.5 million to $193.7 in FY85. 
Although this represents a 7.3 percent gain from the prior year, a more 
realistic measurement from the FY83 level of $185.1 million reflected a 
2.3 percent year-to-year gain. An increased effort was made in FY85 to 
support anti-terrorism security initiatives, community service 
activities, and administration support for AMC activities and non-AMC 
tenants. 

AMC Management Decision Package (M-DEP) Concept (U) 

(U) An AMC Management Decision Package concept was developed and 
pursued in an attempt to resolve many problem areas associated with the 
Army and AMC Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System (PPBES). 
Under the PBBES structure in FY85, AMC received almost 600 Program 
Development Increment Packages (PDIPs) from DA, built along 
appropriation "stovepipe" lines, with no Budget/Execution feedback 
loop. Also, AMC did not use most of these PDIPs since they did not 
represent reality or mirror the way AMC did business. After a massive 
study and staffing effort in both the field and HQ AMC, a new decision 
package concept tailored to AMC operation practices was presented to 
DA. The AMC M-DEP concept included 180 M-DEPs broken into the 
following six categories: Commodity M-DEPs, Intensively Managed Weapon 
System M-DEPs, AMHA M-DEP, and TOE M-DEP. 

(U) Efforts were set in motion to develop the FY88-92 Program 
Analysis and Resource Review (PARR) and the FY86 Zero Based Budgeting 
(ZBB) submissions using this structure. Informal approval on basic 
concept was given by DA before FY85 ended. 



21 



Command Operating Budget (COB) /PARR Consolidation (U) 

(U) In FY85 the COB and PARR processes were combined in order to 
integrate them into basically one format which could be used for both 
requirements. The approach enlarged upon similarities, recognized the 
differences, and eliminated unnecessary and marginally valuable data. 
One submission for both would be due in May of each year with a PARR 
update required in October. The cost Data Worksheet (CDWS) in the 
M—DEP format would be used as the primary vehicle for data input. Data 
would be entered into the HQ PRMS data base using magnetic tape or 
LOTUS diskettes depending on the MSC choice. Key benefits of this 
integration would include improved continuity from program to budget and 
improvements.in standardized methodology used in requirement 
computation. 

Program Integration Division (U) 

(U) The Program Integration Division continued its program 
analysis and evaluation efforts in areas such as the Research, 
Development and Acquisition (RDA) Core Team, the Long-Range Research, 
Development and Acquisition Plan (LRRDAP), PARR, Light Infantry 
Division (LID) development, and Army Materiel Plan (AMP) reviews. To 
improve both mission and command performance, the division initiated a 
new procedure to integrate intelligence input into resource programing 
efforts. The division contributed heavily to several other efforts to 
improve effectiveness. These included the Integration of Program 
Integration Capabilities (IPIC), Program Decision Increment Package 
(PDIP) revisions, and Materiel System Reviews. 

RDA Reviews (U) 

(U) RDA reviews began early in the year with TRADOC schools and 
centers and AMC MSCs developing mission area materiel plans (MAMP). In 
May the mission area managers (MAM) reviewed, approved and submitted 
MAMPs to the Core Team for final review and approval. This was the 
first year that the review was conducted by mission areas and the first 
year that the Core Team did not visit the field activities. This year 
about half of the procurement appropriation was reviewed in addition to 
RDTE. The products generated included: an integrated RDTE /procurement 
program priority list by mission area; a workable FY86 program of 
execution; FY87 program objective memorandum (POM) to budget issues; 
FY88 POM issues; input to the LRRDAP; and guidance to the PMs and Labs 
on the conduct of their work. 

LRRDAP (U) 

(U) As a part of the Army Plan, LRRDAP addressed RDTE and 
procurement programs for the five POM years and the ten additional 
Extended Planning years (FY88-2002), providing details on 
prioritization, quantity and dollars profile, and supporting mission, 
and program descriptions organized by mission area. 



8 Budget Division historical submission, FY85. 



22 



(U) Two major changes made by DA in the LRRDAP structure also 
altered the AMC and TRADOC review process. Responding to AMC's 
request, HQDA provided more realistic planning guidance in the form of 
likely funding bands FY88-02. TRADOC and AMC were tasked to ensure 
that the minimum band contained a balanced expenditure Army program. 
The second change concerned the identification of all RDTE and 
procurement resources required to develop, produce, modify and sustain 
a system in our program decision increment package. Increments 
representing different production rates, fielding rates, IOC dates, 
acquisition strategies, or technological approaches were constructed to 
give decision makers reliable program alternatives. TRADOC prioritized 
the increment packages while AMC assessed executability/business sense 
concerns and the completeness of the dollar and quantity profiles. The 
ultimate goal of these changes was to smooth the transition process 
from the LRRDAP to the POM. 

PARR (U) 

(U) The PARR is the document through which AMC outyears resource 
requirements are presented to HQDA. It includes Operation and 
Maintenance, Army (OMA), Army Family Housing (AFH), Military 
Construction, Army (MCA), and manpower requirements. It provided AMC's 
input to the POM building process. The Modernization Resource 
Information Submission (MRIS), an integral part of the PARR, was used 
to forward information required to support specific major systems 
resource requirements. The fiscal year began with a General Officers 
level field review of FY87-91 requirements. Upon approval by the OMA 
Core Team and the Resource Action Committees, the FY87-91 PARR, 
containing an Executive Summary of AMC— directed PDIPs and MRIS input, was 
submitted to HQDA in January 1984. Immediately thereafter, AMCRM-PI 
began working on the process for the FY88-92 submission. Preparations 
started with distribution of the Field Instructions (guidance for AMC's 
subordinate activities). To ensure an understanding of these 
instructions and the overall PARR process as well as promote continuity 
in requirements interpretation, Program Integration (PI) Division 
hosted an AMC Programmers' Budget Conference. Nominations for AMC 
directed PDIPs were then solicited from both the AMC staff and 
participating field activities. The remaining PDIPs were prioritized 
for submission to HQDA where they would compete for funds. Data for the 
FY88-92 PARR was due to HQ AMC by the end of the fiscal year. 

HTMD/ADEA/LID (U) 

(U) Funding requirements for the 9th Infantry Division (ID) 
identified Phase I go~to~war surrogate equipment was fully developed 
and forwarded to the DA staff for resourcing. A process for reporting 
obligations of Army Development and Employment Agency (ADEA) RDTE funds 
was developed and further guidance was provided to the AMC MSA and ADEA 
on future program development and execution. Working with DCS for 
Planning Technology (DCSLS), the PI Division assisted ADEA with their 
PARR submission to prevent duplication with AMC programs and to ensure 
the most efficient use of resources. 



23 



Army Materiel Plan Review (U) 

(U) Working with AMCSM, PI Division initiated the first AMC 
Command Review of the Summer AMP process. From this review and a DA 
staff initiative to integrate the planning, programing, budgeting and 
execution system (PPBES) process, the IPIC task force was established. 

Intelligence Input to Resource Programing (U) 

(U) A new procedure was formalized to allow the DCS for 
Intelligence (DCSI) to provide input to the resource managers (DCSRM) 
to influence executability analyses and decrement drills. In 
accordance with a prescribed format, the DCSI was preparing issue 
sheets on systems, either in production or in research and development, 
which may no longer be responsive to the threat. These issues would be 
used by DCSRM analysts during budget cutting exercises to find sources 
for needed funds. Also, the analysis provided by the DCSI would be 
used by Weapon Systems Staff Managers and Weapon Systems Staff Officers 
in DCSDE and DCSLD as guidance as to what system changes, product 
improvements, and new research directions are needed. This effort was 
coordinated by AMCRM-PIM. 

IPIC Task Force (U) 

(U) A PI Division representative served as the core team member 
who initiated this study and recommendations to the HQ AMC staff on 
processes and management initiatives to implement total program 
integration at the AMC level. This very complex and interdependent 
task continued into FY86. 

Single Manager for Conventional Ammunition (SMCA) Program Decision 
Increment Package (PDIP) (U) 

(U) SMCA would manage Department of Defense (DOD) Conventional 
Ammunition Acquisition (including production, production base and 
procurement, logistics, including supply, distribution, transportation, 
storage, maintenance, renovation, demilitarization and disposal), 
financial management and personnel and training functions as specified 
in DOD Directive 5160.65. The participants in this effort were AMCCOM, 
DESCOM, MICOM and USATHAMA. AMCRM would ensure that the overall 
program was properly balanced. 

(U) During the October 1984-September 1985 budget cycles, the 
program experienced considerable problems. During Sustain Panel 
proceedings "Cherry Blossom Drill" and other decrements, the SMCA 
program experienced large cuts in FY87and FY88 resources. Under the 
existing funding levels, the Army could not execute this program in the 
two years. Additional resources were necessary to bring SMCA into 



24 



compliance with DOD Directive 5160.65 and allow the Army to meet its 
interservice commitments. Extensive efforts were made between DA and 
AMC staff to preclude another turbulent budget drill/cycle. 

Force Development Division (U) 

Personnel Space Authorization and Strength (U) 

(U) Civilian . The DA civilian program to AMC for FY85 (111,825) 
when compared with the FY84 program (115,492) showed an overall net 
decrease of —3,667 civilian spaces. This net decrease related to 
several significant program changes in FY85, such as: An increase to 
the AIF program based on funded customer workload, Program Budget 
Decision (PBD) 401; a reduction in both the AIF and non-AIF programs 
due to PBD's 666 and 666C which reduced DOD civilian employment levels; 
an extension of FY84 reduction per PBD 605 which reduced direct hire 
civilians; an increase in the RDTE program to modernize Dugway Proving 
Ground; an extension of the FY84 increase for the Spare Parts Program; 
and an extension of FY64 reductions resulting from projected savings 
based on economies and efficiencies. 

(U) Civilian End Strength . Actual (direct hire) civilian 
strength increased from 116,115 at end FY84 to 117,952 at end FY85, a 
net difference of (+) 1,837; actual Full Time Permanent (FTP) civilian 
strength increased from 111,193 to 112,931 in the same period, a net 
change of (+) 1.738. 11 

(U) Elimination of Civilian Ceilings . On 19 October 1984, the 
President signed the DOD FY85 Authorization Act which provided for a 
one-year test of operating without end strength ceilings in all DOD 
activities. The 'no ceiling" provision for FY85 ensued from the 
excellent results of a similar test for DOD industrially funded 
activities during FY83 and FY84 where civilian employment levels were 
driven by funded workload. In lieu of end strength ceilings during 
FY85, HQDA elected to control civilian strength by assigning Annual 
Financial Targets (AFT) which capped the amount of funds that could be 
spent on pay and benefits for civilian personnel. Within assigned AFT, 
DA organizations were required to develop Civilian Employment Level 
Plans (CELP) to project the number of civilian employees expected to be 
on*-board at the end of each month. Explanations were required when 
actual strength at the end of a month differed from the projection by 3 
percent or 1,000 (whichever was less). A major problem encountered 
under this method of control was that the AFT assigned to AMC did not 
cover all AMC funded work (e.g. depot work covered by customer orders; 
RDTE reimbursable work; and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) work totally 
funded by foreign customers). 



a 

* Program Budget Historical submission, FY85. 

^ See Table, this chapter, for detailed statistics. 

See Table, this chapter, for major activities breakout 



25 













Crf 


t-i 


CT> 


CM 






03 


<r 


<r 


o 




























a 


<t 


o> 


<r 






Id 


vO 


v£> 






























<7\ 


00 


1 






I! 
































2 


H 










2 


H 
































O 


O 










O 


O 
































i— l 












M 


































H 












H 


































u 












C_> 














































A 










c 
























o 












o 










•H 
























erf 












Crf 


















co 
















Cm 












Cu 










cu 

a 




U 

eO 




jj 
>-i 


U-l 

O 














g 




i—l 


vO 


m 




H 




<T 


m 


o> 


i-i 




J3 




ca 
















CU 


m 


CM 


CM 




2 


a. 


r^ 


i-i 


m 


j_i 




4-1 




Cm 


cu 














w 


H 


m 


CT> 


vD 




Id 


H 


CT> 


•—I 


oo 












B9 














"2 


Cu 


-a- 


O 


en 




s 


b 


<T 


CM 


CM 


T3 




4J 




CU 


3 














>3 




i— 1 


t— 1 


1 




P^ 




^-1 


.—I 


1 


e8 




d 




l-l 


eej 














o 




r-l 


•— 1 






o 




•—4 


i—l 




0) 




CJ 




eO 


CJ 




• 










hJ 












J 










H 








O. 


0) 




: 










Cm 












a. 














CJ 




CO 


=Q 




CU 










s 












s 










CU 




VO 










JJ 










w 












w 










> 




O 




^ 






3 




Q 
























•\ 




•H 




vJ3 




C 


• 




CJ 




2 






2 












2 






en 




u 








o 


>, 




CU 




< 






M 












< 
l-l 




i—l 


CM 




CO 
I-I 




Q 
CO 




tJ 

j-i 


3 




(d 




2 






J 


i-h 










►J 


J 






<T> 


J_l 




Cu 




CO 


o 








o 






1— 1 


<C 


CN 


m 


r-^ 




h- 1 


< 


OO 


CTi 


m 


en 








N 






j-i 




l-J 






> 


H 


CT> 


CN 


vO 




> 


H 


en 


r^. 


00 


■H 




U-l 




■H 


^n 




o 




H 






M 


O 


<r 


oo 


\o 




H 


O 


o 


•—I 


CM 


c 




O 




c 


CO 




2 




< 






U 


H 


m 


f-l 


n 




CJ 


H 


m 


CM 


1 


-H 








eO 










N 










•— i 


1— 1 


1 








i—i 


i—l 




e 




G 




00 >^ 




O 




H 




s-\ 






i— i 


I—l 










i—i 


•—I 




•o 




O 




Im 


Cu 




_Q 




erf 




o 
























CO 




•H 




O 










O 




CO 




























4J 




CU 


Ul 








~ 


CO 


Oi 
























o 




« 




u 


o 




•3 




H 


2 














/-N 












JJ 




JJ 






U-l 




CU 




n 


O 


m 












CJ 
















C 




2^ 






JJ 




< 


M 


qo 












CO 
Cm 












eu 

3 




CU 

a 




CJ 


3 

o 




CJ 

3 




>* 


cj 


c-i 
























-o 




cu 




CO 


■H 




)-i 




erf 


W 


o 












in 
















i-H 




o 


«J 




jj 




< 


"-> 


o 












00 












e 




O, 




erf 


U 




co 




H 


O 


V- ' 
























eej 




a 




H 


3 




3 




i— i 


Crf 














H 












Li 




•h 






-a 




•H 




-J 


cu 


cj 












O 












00 








2 


01 








M 




s 












O 












O 




<r 




o 


VJ 


• 


<j 




s 


H 


<■ 












**.* 












U 




CO 




CJ 




-o 


Q 


H 


cj 


2 

Cd 


o 












^ 












a. 




K 




CO 

> 


0) 


cu 


J3 


a 


;§ 


jg 


H 












s 












< 






< 




r-t 


CJ 
•H 


3 




o 


]y* 












CJ 






en 








o 




o 


ex 


a. 


J3 


< 


2: 


hJ 


<3 






CO 


CM 


\£> 


o 






o\ 


ON 


o 


e 




J-l 




JJ 


H 


eO 


> 


H 


M 


p . 


02 




hJ 


00 


sr 


•* 


oi 




J 


in 


CM 


en 


o 










.-1 










2 


cj 




2 


CM 


i—i 


•—I 


o. 




2 


CM 


r-4 


i—i 


u 




cu 




cu 


■H 


jj 


^^ 




CO 


w 


o 

crf 




Cd 


r~ 


r-~ 


1 


cj 




Cd 


r^ 


r-. 


1 


U-I 


. 


3 
13 




3 


J3 


O 

3 


> 




2 


2 


CU 












2 












03 


US 








CO 




a 




Cd 


<$ 














<3 












U 


cu 


a 




a 




CU 






s 


M 


<J 


>^ 




en 


<• 


ON 




SH 




O 


-3- 


vO 


0) 


oo 


efl 




efl 


-a 


I-i 


•—1 




H 


J 


Q 


crf 


O 


00 


r-~ 


1 


m 


crf 


O 


oo 


r^ 


l 


U-I 


a 


Vj 




>-i 


c 


CU 


CM 




co 


M 




<: 


3 


CM 


CM 




00 


<: 


3 


CM 


CM 




U-l 


c8 


oo 




00 


CO 


5 






=i 


> 


m 


H 












H 










■H 


JS 


o 




o 






m 




•-j 


I—l 


00 


H 










>" 


M 










T3 


CJ 


u 




u 


^o 


co 


i-H 




5 


u 


|H 


J 










Cm 


J 




en 








o. 




D.CC 


C 


3 






Cm 


i— i 












hJ 




-3- 


i—l 


en 


co 


>i 










o 


cu 










2 


Cu 


en 


v£> 


r-^ 




X 


fc. 


i—i 


en 


00 


cu 


U 


c 




c 


c 


•H 






id 








Cm 


(N 


CM 


en 






fcw 


en 


CM 


1 


a 


CO 


cd 




CO 


J-l 


1—1 




=c 








o 


en 


CM 


1 






O 


en 


en 




efl 


jj 


•H 




•H 




CJ 






H 










en 


<n 
















a. 

CD 


iH 


•H 




i-l 
i-l 


H 

i-i 


3 
T3 


UM 




co 






























■H 


> 




> 


j-i 


CU 


U-l 




H 




























5s 


a 


•H 




-H 


C 


I-i 


O 




CJ 








J 


<r 


CM 


CM 






J 


en 


O- 


a\ 


U 




U 




O 


3 








9 








<; 


CTi 


<• 


m 






< 


in 


en 


r-4 


eO 


M 




in 






m 


<3" 










H 


00 


vO 


CM 






H 


CO 


vO 


CM 


4J 


c 


< 


CO 


<: 


CD 


oo 


v^ 




r - 








o 


O 


o 


1 






O 


o 


o 


1 


i-l 


•H 


Q 




Q 


> 








3 








H 


.—1 


1— 1 








H 


1—1 


1—1 




H 


JJ 




>" 




-H 


tH 


3 






























•H 


l-l 


S 


Cu 


cu 


J-> 


Cm 


O 
































6 


o 

a. 


o 

r-H 


c 


> 

o 


O 
1) 


l-l 


•H 

JJ 
































I-I 


CU 


CU 


•H 


ja 


U-l 


O 


O 
































o 


u 


J3 




CO 


UM 


U-l 


3 
































U-l 


00 


CO 


CU 
> 


co 


CU 


J-l 


-3 

cu 
































e 


c 


J-l 


iH 


j-i 


J-l 


CO 


l-l 
















1 
















eO 


1-( 


CJ 


J-l 


a 


o 


cu 


































u 
oo 


4J 

c 


cu 

i-H 


O 
CU 


cu 


c 


J-l 


cl 






























/— s 


o 


cu 


U-4 


U-l 


U-l 


00 


; 


gg 






























1 


I-I 


a 


CU 


U-l 


cu 


3 


00 


^ 






























a 


CU 


u 


CU 


U 


■H 


3 




















1 












N^^ 


CJ 


i-l 


CJ 


CQ 


o 


j-i 

o 




co 

CU 














•J" 


u-i 










-d- 


m 


in 


2" 


a 


CO 


eel 


CO 


CO 


iH 


T3 














oo 


00 










00 


00 


00 


^ 


•H 


Pw 


> 


Cm 


IM 

J-J 


CJ 


3 














>-< 


>* 










>-• 


>* 


!>-i 






CJ 




CJ 


3 




a 














u* 


u, 


m 
oo 








C(4 


u* 


b 


Cd 




2jj 




^ 


O 
CJ 


o 

2 


Cd 














Cd 


id 


>> 

Cm 








Q 
Z 
Cd 


Cd 


Cd 


H 
O 
2 




1—1 




CN 






en 



26 



w 


m 




/"N 


•"> 


CJ> 


00 


r*~ 


00 


ON 


2 


b 


CO 


en 


o> 


M 


O On 


00 


r^ 


v— / 


2 


W 


■> 


«« 


+ 


Dd 


co co 


f-i 


.—i 




tt, 


< 


+ 


+ 




H 


o 
en 




N-^ 





m 


<r 


m 


r>. 


r^ 


CM 


i— ( 


m 


o 


^H 


0^ 


CM 


+ 


i— i 


m 


+ 


+ 




+ 


+ 



M 
H 

CO. 

<C 
H 



33 

H 

on O 

W 2 

H§ 
M H 

> CO 

H 

H 2 
CJ> < 

< M 

J 

U M 

g > 

o 

O J 

-> < 

g H 



m 




/-v 


/•"\ 














00 ,-J 


CM 


r-l 


r-l 


m 


m 


co 


r~~ 


o> 


CO 


m <j 


m 


CO 


CM 


CM 


00 


CM 


<r 


o 


n£> 


»fcH 


CTN 


CT> 


O 


CM 


CO 


St 


-* 


r~> 


r^ 


>-" W O 


A 


n 


« 


« 


« 


A 




„ 


K 


En CO H 


r-> 


CM 


m 


CM 


r-- 


O 




i—i 


in 




i—i 


i-M 


"»• 




v£> 


-* 








O 


r-i 


i— 1 
















CO 




v_x 



















-a- 






00 


hJ 


sr 




< 


CO 


Ou 


H 


:x 


w 


O 


En 


CO 

o 
co 


H 



vO 



CO 


CM 


vO 


o 


ON 


CM 


CM 


vO 


ON 


CM 


o 


vO 


o 


CTi 


o 


St 


1—1 


ON 


CM 


<r 


CM 


CO 


vO 


CM 


A 


* 


M 


M 


A 




* 




1—1 


•* 


CM 


vO 


o 




i—i 


in 


1—1 






vO 


St 

















§ 


















o 


















o 




CO 














CO 




OS 














Ed 




w 














Q 


CO 


o 


CO 










H 


CO 


H 
O 


^ 


09 
3 










O 


CO 


Cm 


.<* 


CO 








as 


.-J 


Ed 
Q 


* 


33 


OS 






^~\ 


Q 


s_x 




H 


U 


33 






d 


J5 




S 


u 


OS 


H 


J 


^-\ 


b 


<d 


CO 


3 


w 


<! 


O 


< 


cu 




— 


C_> 


•-5 


Ed 




H 


H 


H 


§ 


o 


CO 


g 


CO 


J 


O 


En 


O 


o 


CO 


w 


oeJ 


Cx3 


-1 


H 


\^ 


V 


u 


S 


Q 


Pm 


2 


<; 



27 



(U) Management of Civilian Strength . Selected P7S Freeze: In 
the absence of a ceiling on civilian end strength, AMC's direct hire 
on-board strength increased over 2,300 by end 2nd Qtr FY85. P7S dollar 
shortages once again plagued AMC, and reprogrammlng efforts were not 
sufficient to sustain manning levels for several MSCs. Based on an AMC 
Executive Resource Action Committee (RAC) decision, a P7S civilian 
hiring freeze (partial 1 for 2) was imposed on AMCCOM, AVSCOM, CECOM, 
DESCOM and MICOM on 5 April 1985. AMC's on-board strength continued to 
climb. Therefore, AMC, during 3d Qtr FY85 began negotiations with HQDA 
for additional FY86 budgeted workyears, while stressing to its field 
commands and activities the need to reduce growth in actual strength. 

(U) Command-Wide Freeze . Progress in both areas was minimal 
and guidance from HQDA precluded the early release of temporary 
employees, compounding the difficulty. In July 1985, AMC's actual 
direct hire strength peaked at 122,035- — an increase of almost 6,000 
from end FY84. On 9 August 1985, an AMC command-wide hiring freeze was 
effected. This freeze limited civilian hiring to one new hire per loss 
of two permanent employees to outside of AMC, and directed the release 
of all temporary employees at expiration of existing appointment. 

(U) End FY85 Closeout . With the hiring freeze still in 
effect, AMC closed out FY85 with a direct hire civilian on-board 
strength of 117,952. This was 6,127 over DA guidance (111,825) for end 
FY85, and reflected a decrease in strength of 4,083 from the 31 July 
1985 level (just two months prior to the end of FY85). 

(U) End FY85 Impact on FY86 . Summer-long negotiations with 
HQDA culminated in receipt of revised FY86-88 civilian manpower 
guidance on 25 September 1985. This new guidance represented an 
increase to both FY86 civilian employment estimate (CEE) and workyears 
over those levels contained in the DA October 1985 PBG. AMC's end FY85 
position placed the Command in a good posture to execute its FY86 
program. 

Military (U) 

(U) AMC programed military space authorizations remained 
relatively constant from end FY84 to end FY85 (10,853 FY84 and 10,634 
FY85). Actual (on-board) strength decreased from 10,456 at end FY84 to 
9,652 at end FY85. This equated to an understrength of 982 military 
personnel from the authorized FY85 (10,634 and 9,652). 

(U) Force Alignment Plan II, Command Grade Ceiling (FAP II, 
CGC) . For FY85 AMC had a Basic Branch Field Grade (FG) ceiling of 
1,430 officers (COL-355; LTC-632; MAJ-443). This ceiling was 340 below 
the documented FG authorization of 1,770 (C0L-374; LTC-743; MAJ-653), 
and required that the difference be balanced by application of a 
Remarks Code 99 - fill at next lower grade during peacetime - to 340 FG 
TDA authorizations. 



28 



(U) Conversion of AMC Enlisted to Civilian (FY88) . A DA Total 
Army Analysis 91 (TAA-91) decision reduced the number of enlisted 
spaces to be converted to civilian in FY88 from 2,300 to 1,000. AMC was 
subsequently informed that this decision was reversed. AMC would not be 
required to convert any of the original 2,300 spaces from enlisted to 
civilian. 

(U) Operating Strength Deviation (OSDV) . Final HQDA decision 
on AMC spaces to be converted to civilian was 91 military (78 
officers/13 warrant officers). Conversion would occur during FY86 (63 
officers/11 warrant officers) and FY87 (15 officers/2 warrant 
officers). 

(U) European Troop Strength (ET) . During FY85, AMC's European 
Troop Strength (ETS) ceiling was reduced from 612 to 608 military 
spaces. In another major development, CINCUSAREUR was designated by 
Joint Chiefs of Staff Memo 7*-85 executive agent for developing and 
prioritizing a balanced Army in Europe, and was granted authority and 
responsibility to determine force and troop mix. 

(U) Military to Civilian Conversion/1.5 percent TDA Cut . A 
major decision of the TAA-91 process was to require the TDA Army to 
convert approximately 4,000 military spaces to civilians. The final DA 
implementing message referred to this decision as the military to 
civilian conversion/1.5 percent TDA cut. AMC's share was to convert 
217 officers and 1 warrant officer to civilian spaces in FY87. At 
end FY85 this action was being applied within the command. 

Unprogrammed Manpower Requirements (U) 

(U) In FY81, the term "0ut~of-Cycle" (00C) was coined by HQDA to 
identify Army-wide near term manpower shortfall requirements exclusive 
of those projected and addressed in the Army's Planning, Programming, 
Budgeting and Execution System (PPBES). These requirements were 
normally associated with unforeseeable circumstances and/or new 
missions levied upon MACOMs by higher authority which could not await 
normal PPBES cycle documentation. Requests for the staffing of these 
shortfall requirements were addressed to 0DCSPER, DA for review by the 
DA Out-of-Cycle Manpower Review Committee, whose recommendation could 
only be approved by the VCSA. In January 1984 a Manpower Review Working 
Group (MRWG) was established at HQ AMC, with a membership of eight of 
the 14 directorates/offices of the Senior Resources Action Committee 
(RAC), which was to address unresourced /unprogrammed 00C manpower 
requirements and other manpower issues, and to take action leading to 
their resolution. At the Army Commander's Conference in the fall of 
1983 and again in April 1984, the CG AMC addressed the chronic AMC 
manpower shortage problem, and stated that the 00C process was 
cumbersome and of minimum benefit. From its inception in FY81 through 
FY84, AMC requested 2,665 00C spaces; however, 1,169 were supported and 
1,496 were declined. Also, Program Budget Decision (PBD) 605 reduced 
AMC by 1,038 spaces in FY83, and beyond as a billpayer to meet other 
Army-wide requests. The net result was that AMC was provided little 
relief. At both conferences, the CG recommended the elimination of the 



29 



OOC process and that manpower resources be addressed up front by DA/DOD 
simultaneously with mission assignment. He further added that AMC 
would continue to participate in the OOC process so long as HQDA 
assessed "billpayers" on AMC to cover the spaces that were supported by 
the DA staff. 

(U) FY85 . Since AMC's manpower resources were in short supply, 
and new missions were levied by higher authority without additional 
resources, General Thompson issued a command—wide manpower management 
policy statement in October 1984, which emphasized that no additional 
manpower spaces would be forthcoming, and addressed alternatives to be 
followed to meet the challenge. With the redesignation of DARCOM to 
AMC, and subsequent reorganization which placed the principal AMC staff 
resource advisors within one staff element — the Deputy Chief of Staff 
for Resource Management (DCSRM), including the Force Development 
Division. The Manpower Review Working Group (MRWG) was disestablished 
in January 1985. In lieu thereof, DCSRM was to administer manpower 
management functions through normal staff action, and refer 
unresolved/significant issues to the Senior Resources Action Committee 
(RAC). In February 1985, HQDA announced that OOC manpower requests 
would be accepted and processed only for military shortfalls; civilian 
requirements were to be absorbed by MACOMs from within their authorized 
workyears and assigned Annual Financial Target (AFT). In August 1985 
HQDA announced that OOC procedures would be integrated into the Total 
Army Analysis (TAA) process. Routine OOC requests would be 'laid down 1 
and held to compete with all other demands during the Annual 
August-October TAA review. Only emergency/warstopper requests would 
receive off— line processing, and then only if personally requested by a 
MACOM commander. For FY85, requirements for 294 spaces were addressed 
to DA as OOC. Of these, 73 were supported and 99 declined. 
Requirements for 122 spaces were still in process at DA, of which a 
request for 13 military was being reviewed by the General Officer 
Steering Committee (GOSC) of the TAA for the Abrams European Forward 
Fielding Team. At yearend, final results were not known. 

Army Management Headquarters Activities (AMHA) (U) 

(U) AMHA Delegation of Authority . As a result of a request 
from HQ AMC, HQDA (ODCSPER) revised the policy for controlling AMHA 
manpower authorizations. By 26 October 1984 message, HQDA 
delegated authority to all MACOMs to make internal changes within total 
authorized AMHA ceilings. 



12 Commander's Guidance Statement (CGS) No. 43, HQ AMC, AMCRM, 10 Oct 

84, subj: Manpower Management. 
^ Msg, HQDA, DAPE-MBA, subj: Army Management Headquarters Activities 

(AMHA) Manpower Control Change, 261700Z Oct 84, as quoted in 

55-RM-85. 



30 



Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Ceiling Exemption Legislation (U) 

(U) The ongoing tri-Service attempt in FY84 to obtain amendatory 
legislation to exempt full-time (90 percent or more) FMS personnel from 
ceilings, was overtaken by events. The 1985 Defense Authorization Act 
contained a provision for a one-year lifting of civilian end strength 
ceilings in DOD. With the trial elimination of ceilings on a test 
basis for FY85, it was assumed that FMS staffing, funded exclusively by 
reimbursement from foreign governments, would finally not be 
constrained by an end strength ceiling. Such was not to be the case, 
however, since HQDA imposed workyear and AFT controls on MACOMs to hold 
civilian end strength relatively constant and to stabilize that 
strength. Reimbursable spaces were included in workyear and AFT 
controls, and since FMS positions generate accountable workyears, they 
were limited in their staffing capability during this period. The 
command-wide hiring freeze also impacted on FMS hiring since the freeze 
was not solely geared to end strength or funding issues, but 
principally to the lack of sufficient FY86 workyears. At yearend (28 
September 1985) the CG, AMC, in a letter to General M.R. Thurman, 
prepared by the U.S. Army Security Assistance Center (USASAC), 
solicited VCSA support to get FMS-dedicated and reimbursable personnel 
exempted from Army end strength ceilings. For end FY84, AMC covered 
FMS overhire positions through command'-wide adjustments to end strength 
ceilings; relief in the way of pay-back from DOD /DA did not 
materialize. For end FY85 it was not necessary to cover FMS overhire 
positions through end strength adjustments since the no ceiling test 
permitted retention of FY85 non-authorized FMS personnel into FY86. 

Manpower Office (U) 

(U) Control of Overhires in HQ AMC . In filling civilian 
vacancies, recruitment administrative lead time created a situation 
called a hirelag where authorized positions were vacant until 
recruitment was completed. In HQ AMC, the hirelag would have resulted 
in about 10 percent of authorized positions being vacant at all times. 
To allow the full use of manpower authorizations, make full use of 
available funding, and keep elements up to strength, it was common 
practice in Army to allow elements to hire above authorizations and 
cover these overhires with the vacancies resulting from the hirelag. 

(U) Headquarters elements were provided decentralized funding for 
pay of people and allowed to manage their own numbers of people 
onboard. Managers were allowed to hire above their authorization with 
the only constraints of having an established position, available 
payroll dollars, and a valid workload. By mid-FY85, the headquarters 
had eliminated the hirelag and was almost up to strength, but a problem 
was developing because manpower managers could not be certain that 
their authorization documents reflected a true picture of the 
organization. Overhires numbered about 190, or over nine percent of 
the civilian workforce, and imbalances began to appear between 



14 Ltr, HQ USASAC, AMSAC-RP/R, 28 Sep 85, subj: FMS Manpower 
Support, as quoted in 55-RM-85. 



31 



elements. Some elements were overstrength and facing pay of people 
problems while others were significantly understrength. Because 
decentralized management of overhires was not working, AMC Chief of 
Staff published overhire allocations for each headquarters element and 
directed that overhires could only be recruited for like positions on 
the HQ TDA. 

(U) This action was required to correct manpower strength 
imbalance between elements and bring actual people utilization in line 
with authorization documents. The use of overhires was a valid concept 
and necessary to obtain the full use of authorized resources. The 
lesson learned in FY85 was that overhire authority had to be centrally 
controlled and constantly monitored to prevent abuse. 

(U) An overhire briefing was prepared to explain the appropriate 
use of overhires in HQ AMC, followed by a policy letter for 
command-wide distribution. 

Manpower Qualitative Management (U) 

(U) Manpower Staffing Standards Systems (MS-3) . MS-3 was the 
Army-wide program with the objective of implementing a workload based 
system for identifying and justifying manpower requirements through the 
development and application of staffing standards (AR 570-5, Manpower 
Staffing Standards System, 15 May 1984). 

(U) Originally implemented in FY84, the MS-3 program became fully 
operational in FY85. A major milestone in the program was the decision 
in April 1985 to consolidate the MS-3 program with the Army Performance 
Oriented Review and Standards (APORS) program and to assign 
responsibility for program execution to the AMC Management Engineering 
Activity (MEA), Huntsville, AL, a Separate Reporting Activity (SRA) 
under the DCSRM. Program management responsibility and staff oversite 
of the MS-3 program was retained by the Chief, HQ AMC Force Development 
Division. As result of intensive yet selective recruitment, 50 of the 
64 MS-3 spaces were filled at the end of the year. The imposition of 
the AMC-wide hire freeze was in part responsible for not filling 
remaining vacancies. 

(U) There were five functions in AMC covered by MS-3 standards: 
Civilian Personnel, Installation Safety, Fire Prevention, Dining 
Facilities, and Civilian Pay, validating a requirement for 3136 
manyears against an authorized strength of 2472. During the year 
standards development efforts were underway in many other functions to 
include Procurement, New Equipment Training, Facilities Engineering, 
Finance and Accounting, and other installation support (BASOPS) areas. 
Coverage by standards was expected to increase significantly in FY86. 

(U) Three efforts closely related to MS-3 were also initiated in 
FY85. MEA established the capability to develop and evaluate manpower 
models to project and validate requirements in those functions where 
detailed standards were either extremely difficult or costly to 
develop. One model, the Software Engineering Cost Model (SECOMO) was 



32 



adopted from private industry and was used in the FY88-92 PARR 
submission for Battlefield Automation. DA took the model and was in 
the process of testing it Army-wide for other software applications. 
Two other models, covering Central Procurement and Security Assistance 
functions, were also being validated. 

(U) The second related effort involved a comprehensive review of 
the manpower portion of the FY88-92 PARR submission. Using the same 
statistical and comparative analysis techniques which were employed in 
applying standards, this gave the capability to validate 
workload/manpower relationships and constrain requirements to minimum 
hardcore essential. 

(U) The final effort involved documentation of all TDAs with Army 
Functional Dictionary codes. Each position on the TDA reflected the 
major function performed; the AFD data base would then permit the Force 
Development Division to identify the total manpower required by 
discrete function, and give an additional tool for evaluation of 
resources requirements and utilization. The AFD data base would be a 
major factor in resource allocation/control. 

(U) AMC Evaluation System (ARES) Redesign . The CG directed a 
redesign of the old DRES report into a new format called ARES - AMC 
Readiness Evaluation System. A prototype was developed by the HQ AMC 
Proponent, DCSRE, that incorporated provisions of the HQDA Army 
Logistic Assessment process into the new format. This enabled AMC to 
have a centralized readiness evaluation process compatible with the 
information needs of HQDA in their various tasking requirements on AMC. 
ARES, intermediate in its ongoing development, concentrated on the 
Logistic/Materiel aspects only in its CY85 submission. Manpower and 
personnel interfaces were not included in the prototype submission. 
Subsequent development of an ARES-Manpower input would depend upon 
future requirements of the Command. 

(U) Operation PRO ACT . This major study effort, begun by the 
Directorate for Personnel, Training and Force Development (DRCPT) in 
May 1983, was intended to improve operations of four major functions 
throughout AMC. The Force Development Division, as overall PRO ACT 
Coordinator, managed the study efforts of the military personnel, 
civilian personnel, Adjutant General (AG) and force development 
functional areas. During CY84, the Civilian Personnel Study was 
completed with recommendations for consolidation of some Civilian 
Personnel Offices (CPO) and certain sub-functions in 
various geographical regions. Military Personnel Division completed 
efforts which resulted in the planned civilianization of a number of 
military positions in MSC Military Personnel Offices (MILPO). The 
Adjutant General had studies on automation and model AG organization 
well underway in CY84. As a result of the 19 August 1984 HQ AMC 
reorganization, the Force Development Division transferred from DRCPT 
to Deputy Chief of Staff Resource Management (AMCRM) and, consequently 
lost overall responsibility for the remaining AMCPE organizations' PRO 
ACT studies. 



33 



(U) The Force Development studies, assigned on 19 June 1984 were 
conducted by MSC and headquarters teams. MICOM, with support from 
TECOM and AMCCOM, studied the impact of Vertical Force Development 
Management Information System (VFDMIS) on force development functions 
and requirements for additional automated systems to support force 
development functions throughout AMC. AVSCOM, with support from DESCOM 
and TROSCOM, studied the feasibility of standardizing AMC force 
development organizations and consolidating force development 
organizations or functions in geographically proximate areas. The HQ 
AMC Force Development Division studied the feasibility of reducing 
manpower reporting requirements. The recommendations of the Recurring 
Reports Study team were implemented in February 1985. The 
recommendations of the Standardization/Consolidation team were not 
approved due to recent HQDA and AMC decisions on standardization and 
restructuring. The recommendations of the automation team were 
approved and had provided the basis for force development automation 
planning for the entire command. 

(U) AMC Resource Management Executive Workshop (RMEW) . The RMEW 
workshop was designed to provide SES, GM-15 and Colonels an insight 
into resource management including financial, budget and manpower. 
Case studies revolved around situational problems in the resource 
management operations at AMC field organizations. The RMEW included 
seven case studies which were disjointed. The new version related all 
packages. The case study was rewritten into five parts which consisted 
of: Determining/ justifying manpower requirements, programing and 
executing a manpower change, distribution of manpower resources, 
balancing manpower and dollars, and options for reduction of workforce. 

(U) Managing Manpower by Program Development Increment Package 
(PDIP) . A study on this subject was conducted by AMCRM-MFL to 
determine the impact of managing manpower by PDIP. The existing 
Planning, Programing, Budgeting and Execution (PPBES) had a significant 
deficiency in that the execution stage provided no feedback for 
comparing actual execution to the resource decisions made during PPBES. 
This study was to determine the impact managing manpower by PDIP would 
have on AMC field activities, the feasibility of implementing such a 
change, and if HQ AMC implemented PDIP management under the existing 
PDIP system, to enable the field to provide utilization data by PDIP to 
this headquarters thus providing the necessary feedback in the 
execution stage. Under the existing system, there would be major 
disconnects in collecting actual manpower utilization by PDIPs. PDIPs 
were constantly changed by HQDA in the PPBES cycle; they would have to 
remain constant to enable the data to be collected. This would involve 
major system change in the method of conducting business. HQDA also 
recognized these problems and proceeded to take measures to correct 
these shortfalls. Actions taken included: the Army Management 
Structure Code (AMSCO) redesign and the Management Decision Packages 
(M-DEPs) scheduled from implementation in 1988-1992 POM cycle. HQ AMC 
took the proactive role and was in the process of implementing M-DEPs 
within AMC. Workyear utilization from level of effort against dollars 



34 



spent would be obtained, thus providing a certifiable accountability, 
or feedback until the AMSCO redesign became fully operational in 
1988-1992 period. 

(U) Mobilization Base Requirements Model (MOBREM) . MOBREM as a 
computer model defining baseline resources for mobilization of the 
CONUS base was approved on 1 October 1984 as a standard Army Computer 
model by HQDA DCSOPS. In conjunction with Concepts Analysis Agency 
(CAA) and AMC DCSRE personnel, P7S/P7M manpower equations in the model 
were being updated under the MS-3 program of HQDA DCSPER into a 
standard Army system called MOBEPS (Mobilization Base Resources 
Planning System). As the system was implemented in CONUS, ongoing 
efforts were expected to be directed at organizational interfaces 
between HQDA and the MACOMs and within the MACOMs. MOBREPS as an 
integrated planning system has great utility in that, for the first 
time, all CONUS MACOMs would operate under the same consistent planning 
criteria/matrices for mobilization. AMC played and continues to play a 
cardinal role in the development of both the model and the system. As 
a separate feature, the model has a discreet AMC sub— module defining 
the resource, workload, manpower and other interface requirements across 
all the UICs of AMC during mobilization in P7S/P7M. 15 

(U) Officer Personnel Management System (OPMS) . AMCRM-MFL 
participated with AMCPE in the total review of all Military Officer 
Positions (July 1985). The review encompassed job descriptions, 
grade, specialty codes and additional skill identifiers (ASI). AMC 
fared well in Specialty Codes 97 and 51 which were the major base 
specialties for the Materiel and Maintenance Management (MAMS) 
proponency. The review was conducted by the US Army Military Personnel 
Center and the US Army Manpower and Documentation Agency. 

(U) Johnston Island Assessment Task Force (JATF) . During a 
November 1984 visit by the VCSA to Johnston Island, several concerns 
were expressed which resulted in the Deputy Chief of Staff for Chemical 
and Nuclear Matters being tasked to conduct an assessment of that 
facility. The Force Development Division, DCSRM, assigned an analyst 
to participate as a staff member of the JATF to validate manpower 
requirements and to determine the skills required for the existing and 
projected toxic chemical munitions workloads and missions of the 
Johnston Island Chemical Activity (JICA). Results of the JATF 
assessment were briefed to the VCSA on 22 April and 16 May 1985. He 
approved an increased staffing of 156 spaces, including a large 
increase of 76 Military Police enlisted men and 31 civilians. 

TAADS Operational Impact (U) 

(U) TAADS operations were impacted significantly by a new HQDA 
initiative to stabilize and control the Army Force (Document 
Modernization) and an existing TAADS initiative, Management of Change. 
The most significant impacts required: Changing the AMC Resources Self 
Help/Affordability Planning Effort (RESHAPE) program to the HQDA Army 



Force Development Historical submission, FY85. 



35 



Functional Dictionary (AFD) program to enhance standardization in 
support of structure and performance analyses; initiating program to 
submit the AMC Command Plan to HQDA on 1 February and 1 August each 
year and match TDA/MTOE to the Command Plan by Unit Identification Code 
(UIC), Army Management Structure Code (AMSC) and personnel identity 
within AMSC by close of the TAADS Management of Change (MOC) windows on 
31 March and 30 September each year; and adjusting the TAADS TDA/MTOE 
Submission schedule to better support the new documentation 
requirements. ° 

Unit Reporting System (UNITREP) Management (U) 

(U) AMC directed that the Readiness Reporting function of UNITREP, 
under AR 220-1, be performed by AMCRE. Functional transfer from AMCRM 
to AMCRE was completed on 1 August 1985. AMCRM continued to perform 
JCS Pub 6 Unit Identification Code Information Officer (UICIO) 
functions and AR 525-10 functions of registering UIC in UNITREP and 
maintaining related Basic Identity Data Elements (BIDE). AMCRM 
retained workload, which equated to one manyear of effort, was not 
supported by manpower allocation. 

FY87091 Program Analysis and Resource Review (PARR) (U) 

(U) The purpose of the PARR is to provide HQDA with a detailed 
estimate of resources required to operate and maintain facilities and 
equipment at an acceptable level of readiness. It also provides a 
formal means for obtaining needed program participation by commands and 
operating agencies. Through PARR, commands identify and explain their 
resource requirements. The annual PARR helps obviate fragmented 
collection of data by functional interests. Its systematic submission 
facilitates balancing resource allocations made in behalf of the 
commands in the POM. Manpower Programs Section developed manpower 
guidance, based on the DA May 84 PBG and the FY86/87 COB, which was 
used by command and activities in the development and preparation of 
their PARR submissions. The guidance was updated based on the DA 
October 1984 PBG. In November, AMC conducted the Executive Field 
Reviews at AMCCOM, AVSCOM, CECOM, MICOM, TACOM, TROSCOM, and DESCOM at 
HQ AMC. Representatives from the Section participated in the reviews. 
The DA MRIS Review Board met in January and reviewed approximately 50 
systems. Representatives from the Section participated in the reviews. 
Civilian requirements totaled approximately 130,000 spaces in FY87, or 
a shortfall of approximately 17,000. Requirements for MRIS systems 
totaled approximately 17,500 spaces, military and civilians. 
Representatives from the Section participated in the mini-Programers 
Conference and the Program and Budget Workshop and attended the DA 



16 



17 



(1) Ltr, HQDA, PEMS-ZA, 9 Nov83, subj: Army Functional Dictionary 

(AFD) BAS0PS; (2) Msg, HQDA, DAMO-FDZ, subj: Command Plan/AUTS 

Processing, dtd 072220Z Jan 85; (3) Ltr, AMCRM-MFT-M, 6 Aug 85, 

subj: TAADS Document Submission. 

DF, AMCRM-MFT-M, 22 Jul 85, subj: Responsibility of Readiness 

Reporting. 



36 



Force Modernization Conference. In spite of many diversions, late 
receipt of DA PBG, late receipt of command submissions, all due dates 
were met and some ahead of schedule. 

Command Operating Budget . (U) 

(U) Major commands and operating agencies formulated operating 
requirements for FY86 and FY87 based on the POM and the DA May 1985 
issue of the PBG. These requirements were submitted to HQDA in July 
1985 as the COB. COB costs resourced decisions which were made during 
the program cycle. They updated amounts previously recorded for the 
prior year and current year, and they justified command requirements. 
Appropriation directors used COB requirements and workload data in 
developing and evaluating their budget estimates. AMC civilian 
requirements for FY86 totaled 126,711 and 126,889 for FY87, excluding 
additional requirements for Depot Maintenance (DESCOM). Military 
requirements were about 11,475 for both FY86 and FY87. AMC identified 
significant civilian increases for Supply Management, Central 
Procurement, Maintenance Support, and Base Operations. AMC requested 
numerous program adjustments between appropriations and between and 
among budget programs. During August and September, Manpower Programs 
Section representatives worked closely with the DA program directors 
and DCSPER, and were successful in getting all requested reprograming 
for FY86 and FY87 accomplished in the DA October 1985 PBG. All approved 
COB reprograming actions were implemented in the AMC September PBG. 

FY87 Army Industrial Fund (AIF) Budget and FY85 Annual Report (U) 

(U) The budget system was designed to provide data required by 
OSD and OMB to evaluate operations and the financial condition of AIF 
activities. AIF Budgets were submitted by AMCCOM (Arsenal/Labs), 
DESCOM (Depots) and MICOM (including TMDE) and included FY85, FY86, and 
FY87. FY85 and end strengths and workyears were based on actual 
execution through March and projections for the remainder of the fiscal 
year. FY86 and FY87 end strength levels were based on the DA May PBG 
as adjusted by approved reprograming requested in the FY86/87 COB. 
FY86/87 workyears were based on FY85 utilization rates. FY85 
projections were 57,429 end strength and 58,538 workyears. FY86 
estimates were 52,775 end strength and 57,059 workyears. FY87 
estimates were 51,033 end strength and 54,491 workyears. Effective 1 
October 1985, AMCCOM R&D Activity was transferred to non-AIF, the 
Missile Intelligence Agency (MIA) was transferred to the Assistant 
Chief of Staff for Intelligence, and Rocky Mountain Arsenal was 
transferred to non-AIF. Significant manpower changes in AIF included 
reductions based on PBD 401 (601 spaces) in FY86, depot maintenance 
reduction (approximately 2,200 spaces) and AP0RS reduction (about 600) 
in FY87. 

Schedule on Detail of Permanent Positions (U) 

(U) This report is submitted to the Comptroller of the Army in 
November of each year. It contains the actual permanent civilian 
positions filled (by grade) for current years and estimates of 



37 



positions to be filled during the budget year and program year. The 
estimates were based on the DA October 1984 PBG, the CIVPERSINS Report, 
TAADS documents, and field input. Following is a summary of high-grade 
positions and average GM/GS grades: 



Actual Estimates 

FY84 FY85 FY86 

Senior Executive Service 127 150 150 

GM/GS-13 and above 11,472 12,030 12,073 

Average GM/GS Grades 8.91 9.03 9.03 



(U) FY85 Overtime Review and Analysis (R&A) . Commands and 
activities submitted quarterly projections on overtime use for FY85 in 
October and reports of actual use of overtime were submitted at the end 
of each quarter. By the end of the second quarter of FY85 overtime 
utilization was 4.7 percent of the total payroll. 

Total Army Analysis (TAA)~92 (U) 

(U) AMC submitted the TAA-92 report to HQDA (DAM0-FDF) on 7 
August 1985. The report contained AMC major unresourced manpower 
requirements, civilian and military. It should be noted that the TAA-91 
report in FY84 contained only military requirements. The TAA-92 report 
covered FY87 through FY92 and was staff developed by HQ AMC based on the 
review and update of issues previously submitted in TAA-91, PARR 
FY87-91 and the FY86-87 COB. Also considered was the possible impact 
of changes in distribution and fielding plans. Since the HQDA MRIS 
scrub in June 1985, manpower for the new AMC special areas was expected 
to appear in the AMC FY88-92 PARR. There were 32 issues considered for 
input to TAA-92 that were put in priority order, but only the first 11 
were submitted. These were divided into three bands— high (4,443 
civilians and 302 military), medium (7,231 civilians and 239 military) 
and low priority (1,609 civilians) for a total of 13,283 civilians and 
541 military. AMC input to TAA-92 was reviewed by the General Officer 
Steering Committee; however, the final outcome was not available at the 
time of this report. 

Program Management 722898 - Management Headquarters Logistics (U) 

(U) This account financed HQ AMC and staff support activities, 
including Service Support Activity, Personnel Support Activity, Field 
Safety Activity, Installation and Services Activity, Surety Field 
Activity, Inspector General Activity, and Security Support Activity. 
This also included Management Headquarters Activities of mid-management 
commodity commands, including AMCC0M, AVSC0M, CECOM, DESC0M, MIC0M, 
TACOM, and TR0SC0M. On 30 September 1985, the actual military strength 
was 433 and the actual civilian strength was 3,893. Civilian 



18 



Ltr, AMCRM-PIS, 7 Aug 85, subj: Total Army Analysis - 92. 



19 AMC TAA-92 Issues 



38 



workyears were 3,948 and actual expenditures totaled $156.4 million. 
The DA October 1984 PBG for this program was 447 military, 3,725 
civilians and 3,725 workyears. Effective 11 March 1985, the Service 
Support Activity and the Personnel Support Activity were discontinued 
and functions were transferred to Headquarters AMC. Effective 1 
October 1985, approximately 500 spaces were transferred from RDTE to 
722898, based on OSD decision (PBD 270) to transfer all AMC management 
headquarters activities, except ERADCOM, to OMA financing. 

(U) Program Management 722896N - Administration . This 
account financed the following functions at TECOM, AVSCOM, TR0SC0M, 
TACOM, CECOM, AMCCOM, DESCOM and MICOM: Comptroller Services, 
Installation Headquarters Administration and Command, Personnel 
Management Support Services, Organizational Effectiveness, and other 
Administration . 

(U) The actual military strength was 170 and civilian strength as 
of 30 September 1984 was 1,987; workyears utilized were 2,052, and 
actual expenditures totaled 85 million. The guidance contained in the 
DA October PBG was 160 military, 1,834 civilians and 2,000 civilian 
workyears. The actual civilian strength on 30 September 1985 was 
2,010, compared with DA October 1985 PBG of 1,343. There was no 
manpower ceiling in FY85. Effective 1 October 1985, the base 
operations accounts would be restructured based upon the Standard 
Installation Organization. This action was expected to substantially 
reduce the 722896N account. 

RDTE Civilian Manpower Program (U) 

(U) The actual onboard civilian strength on 30 September 1984 was 
24,406 and workyears utilized were 25,239. This compared with 21,982 
CEP and 22,772 workyears in the October FY84 DA PBG. The actual 
civilian strength on 30 September 1985 was 25,272, compared with the DA 
October 1985 PBG of 23,860. There was no manpower ceiling in FY85. 

(U) Significant changes occurring in the AMC RDTE civilian program 
for FY85 included decapitalization of AMMRC and HDL in FY85, AMCCOM in 
FY86, and the transfer of 465 RDTE AMHA spaces to OMA, effective FY86. 
Additional RDTE civilian manpower requirements addressed in the FY87-91 
PARR totaled 3,620 for FY87 compared with 3,844 in the FY87 COB. High 
priority unresourced requirements totaled 582 and included 219 to meet 
high priority testing needs at TECOM, 90 for atmosphere research at 
ERADCOM, 46 for systems support of missiles at MICOM, 41 to support 
advanced development efforts in the Army-wide Tactical Deception 
Program at TR0SC0M, and 186 other high priority requirements for 
AMCCOM, AVSCOM, CECOM, AMSAA, AMMRC, BRL, HEL, THAMA, and TMDE Support 
Group. 

Standard Installation Organization (U) 

(U) Effective 1 October 1985, based on the Standard Installation 
Organization, the base operations and the real property maintenance 
accounts were restructured. The number of functional letter accounts 



39 



for base operations increased from 13 to 19. Manpower Programs Section 
reviewed input from commands and prepared data on manpower which was 
submitted to DCSPER to restructure the accounts in the DA October 1985 
PBG. Also, the section prepared information to restructure the account 
in the AMC PBG. 

(U) Establishment of New AMS Codes for Automation (U) 
Effective 1 October 1983, DA established new AMS codes for automation. 
Manpower Programs Section reviewed input from commands and DA PBG 
prepared Schedule 8 to restructure AMS codes for manpower 
(approximately 2,400 spaces) which were reflected in the DA October 
1985 PBG, and prepared data to restructure the codes in the AMC October 
PBG. The Section also reviewed TDA data and prepared Schedule 8 to 
transfer spaces (331 in FY86 and an additional 148 in FY87) to the 
Information Systems Command, effective 1 October 1985. 

(U) Life Cycle Software Engineering Support (LCSE) . Effective 
1 October 1985, based on a change in funding policy, all Life Cycle 
Software Engineering Support (LCSE) spaces were transferred from OMA to 
RDTE. The manpower Programs Section obtained the necessary data on 
manpower assigned to the LCE Centers and implemented changes In the AMC 
PBG. 20 

Productivity Management Division (U) 

AMC Productivity Program Management (U) 

(U) AMC launched RESHAPE in April 1980 as an innovative solution 
to the workyear shortfall. RESHAPE was originated as a program aimed 
at increasing output. As of FY85 RESHAPE evolved into AMC's 
Productivity Program and serves as the umbrella encompassing all 
productivity initiatives within the command that gain workyears and 
achieve dollar and labor savings. The emphasis of the centralized 
effort is on long term productivity improvements. As such, it is the 
pivotal program to develop higher productivity in the wholesale 
logistice base of the Army. These efforts provide vital support to the 
workload burden faced by all major facets of AMC including the 
research and development community, supply, maintenance, engineering, 
procurement, production and others. 

(U) It is AMC policy, and the fundamental incentive of the AMC 
Productivity Program, that savings originating in commands remain 
with the commands for reapplication to high priority unfunded 
requirements. However, the challenge for FY85 was to develop a useful 
and meaningful mechanism to accurately track hard dollar savings 
throughout AMC and clearly indicate how these savings were reapplied 
against priority unfinanced resource requirements. By the close of 
FY85, a mechanism had been established in all major subordinate 
commands (MSCs) for reporting to begin in FY86. 



20 

Force Development Historical submittion, FY85. 



40 



Model Installation Program (MIP) (U) 

(U) AMC is an active participant in MIP, an innovative management 
experiment designed by the Department of Defense to improve services 
and facilities at military installations. MIP was initiated by DOD to 
encourage the Services to allow installation commanders to try new 
ideas. Specifically sought are better ways to organize and operate in 
order to achieve excellence in supporting our personnel by letting the 
installation keep any savings to improve local services and facilities. 

(U) In 1985 there were 29 installations enrolled as model 
installations: ten each from the Army and Air Force and nine Navy 
(including four Marine Corps). AMC was active in the program since its 
inception. By January 1984, Anniston Army Depot (ANAD) and Aberdeen 
Proving Ground (APG) were in the program, and New Cumberland Army Depot 
(NCAD) followed in February 1985. 

(U) An important element of this program allowed the 
participating installation to request a waiver from any regulation or 
policy if the commander believed that increased effectiveness or 
efficiency would result. AMC's Model Installation Program generated 
hundreds of requests for waivers. HQ AMC approved 90 percent of those 
it had reviewed, and 87 percent had been approved by HQDA or higher 
authority. OSD would be requesting that Congress waive public laws 
which would allow the Model Installations: to work from one 
consolidated appropriation fund rather than multiple funds, to 
lease/buy non— technical vehicles locally, to sell excess real estate 
to the highest bidder, to obtain venture capital from the private 
sector, and to rehabilitate installation facilities. The amount of 
deregulation and innovation that would be achieved would be determined 
by the enthusiasm at the installation level and the support from the 
top management. 

Productivity Gain Sharing (PGS) (U) 

(U) Developments in the PGS area were slowed due to increased 
emphasis in other participative management-based productive improvement 
initiatives. Nonetheless, in April 1985 the Commander, AMC, decided to 
install PGS as a permanent program. After deliberations with key MSCs, 
preliminary implementation guidance was issued, which allowed the 
command to use PGS under certain conditions. AMC's experience with PGS 
provided a basis for GAO's informal recommendation to Congress to 
pursue PGS as a high-level productivity initiative. Also, OSD, based 
largely on AMC's PGS tests, published implementation guidance for PGS 
programmers (DOD Guide 5010.31, March 1985). 

Quality Circles (QC) (U) 

(U) FY85 saw significant change in the command's QC program. As 
a result of Chief of Staff, Army visits to Corpus Christi and Anniston 
Army Depots, several impacts on the program were witnessed. First, AMC 
was directed to be the Army's lead in the QC area. Second, the AMC 
program was directed to be expanded and enlarged. In August 1985, AMC 



41 



produced the first ever Army-wide QC conference designed to increase QC 
use throughout the MACOMs. Also, AMC provided continuing consulting 
service to Army and other Federal agencies on a range of QC issues from 
implementation to auditing. Also in August the first-ever AMC-wide QC 
workshop was convened to outline approaches to program expansion, 
enlargement and cohesion. In response to this meeting and earlier 
drives, the program expanded over 20 percent in FY85. At the close of 
the fiscal year there were over 500 Circles encompassing over 4500 
employees. Tangible and intangible benefits from the program were 
varied and many. Documentable savings in excess of $3,000,000 were 
anticipated, which would yield a return on investment ratio of nearly 3 
to 1. 

Defense Regional Inter-Service Support (DRIS) Program (U) 

(U) The DRIS Program, formerly titled Defense Retail Inter-Service 
Support, was designed to promote inter-Service/departmental/agency 
support, and improve effectiveness and economy by eliminating duplicate 
support services without jeopardizing mission accomplishment. The 
existing program was more rigorous, incorporating costing savings and 
Joint Inter-Service Resource Study Group (JIRSG) efforts. JIRSG 
procedures assured systematic review of base operations support 
functions. The existing program was promulgated by a DOD regulation 
(D0D 4000. 19R). DRIS program management, within AMC, was transferred 
to Deputy Chief of Staff for Resource Management (then Comptroller) 
from Deputy Chief of Staff, Engineer (then Director of Installations 
and Services) in late August 1984. The DOD DRIS database maintenance 
function was transferred to Rosslyn, Virginia from Battle Creek, 
Michigan during the first quarter of FY85. In the transference over 
half (about 780 of 1,361) AMC support agreements were lost from 
records, and required reconciliation efforts through early August, 
1985. 

(U) At the Joint Logistics Commanders' (JLC) meeting on 11 
January 1985, the Commander, AMC proposed a Joint Agreement on the 
Costing of Wholesale Inter-Service Support Agreements he signed. 
General Thompson had strongly supported costing wholesale inter-Service 
support agreements when he was the Army's Deputy Chief of Staff for 
Logistics. The US Navy representative to the JLC opposed the 
proposal, and it was not signed. 

(U) Army Regulation 5-16, Army Supplement to Defense Regional 
Inter-Service Support (DRIS) Regulation (DOD 4000. 19-R), 21 August 1985 
was received by most Inter-Service Support Coordinators in September. 
This AR consolidated DRIS policy which had been disseminated in 
numerous responses to questions from the field. 

(U) During the year, the most significant change in program 
figures was increased DRIS savings (cost avoidance) recorded, 
attributable to costing existing agreements in the routine 
review-revision schedule. 



42 



Description 


FY85 


FY84 


Change 


Number of agreements 


1,351 


1,359 


-0.6% 


Value ($000, Reimb + 








nonreimb costs) 


298,465 


264,045 


+13.0% 


Savings ($000, Total 








to Federal Govt. ) 


76,600 


21,599 


+254.6% 


Agreements to be recosted 


680 


1,005 


-32.9% 


AMC Productivity Capital 


Investment Prog: 


ram (U) 





(U) AMC operated a consolidated Productivity Capital Investment 
Program consisting of the DA Productivity Enhancing Capital Investment 
Program (PECIP), DA Quick Return on Investment Program (QRIP), OSD 
Productivity Investment Funding (OSD PIF), and AMC RESHAPE investment 
funding. The purpose of the consolidated program was to reduce 
operating costs through timely investments for capital tools, 
equipment, and facilities. In FY85, AMC was able to fund $17 million 
in productivity enhancing projects which were expected to realize long 
term savings of over $190 million. The AMC Productivity Capital 
Investment Program was a viable avenue for AMC to improve readiness 
through technology and industrial modernization. 

(U) While inadequate funding remained a concern of the AMC 
Productivity Capital Investment Program, emphasis placed on obligation 
rates was disconcerting. AMC began FY85 with $142.9 million in 
unfinanced productivity improving requirements. With approximately 
only 12 percent of these funded in FY85, requests for additional money 
were receiving unfavorable consideration due to low obligation rates 
appearing in official finance and accounting reports. Lag experienced 
between actual obligation and its appearance in the reporting system was 
not recognized at higher levels. 

Subject Matter Assessments (SMA) /Manpower Staffing Standards (MS-3) 

(U) Significant results were achieved from eight Subject Matter 
Assessments (SMA) completed in AMC during FY85. These SMAs, conducted 
in functional areas such as: Cataloging, Spares Budget Management, 
Developmental Contracts, Spare/Repair Parts Requirements Determination, 
Special Maintenance Engineering Programs, War Plans/War Reserves, and 
New Equipment Training, were expected to realize potential savings of 
$51.8 million to the Army. Since these SMAs had included or affected 
other MACOMs, to include USAREUR, the SMA benefits would have a major 
impact on the Army's combat readiness posture. Seven other SMAs were 



43 



started during FY85 and would be completed in early FY86. 
Implementation of these SMAs would also greatly improve AMC's 
productivity, efficiency and readiness. 

(U) Other notable achievements were the completion and approval 
of a manpower staffing standards (MS-3) study in item management, and 
the evaluation and application of a cost comparison model (COCOMO), a 
manpower resource model to determine manpower requirements for AMC Life 
Cycle Software Engineering Centers. The COCOMO model was being studied 
at DA for application in all Army battlefield and management 
information systems centers. Two other resource model evaluation 
studies were ongoing. One model was being evaluated for use in 
determining manpower resource requirements for the USA Security 
Assistance Center, which would eventually have application for all Army 
security assistance organizations if feasible. The other model was a 
resource allocation management aid, under contract with Orkand 
Corporation. This model was being evaluated to determine its 
suitability for use in the manpower requirements determination process. 
A number of SMAs completed in FY85 were to be followed by an MS-3 study 
in FY86. Those scheduled to start on 1 October 1985 were New Equipment 
Training and Central Procurement and Production - a follow-on to the 
Acquisition and Procurement Task Force Study conducted in FY84. 
An MS-3 in the Cataloging and Distribution and Transportation functions 
was scheduled in FY86. 21 

Office of Management and Analysis (U) 

(U) Analytical initiatives institutionalized during 1985 
improved the quality of information available within AMC and the Army. 
The Management and Analysis Office assumed a leadership position within 
the Army logistics analysis community, expanded analytical support to 
PMs, presented quality papers at the Army Operations Research 
Symposium, improved communications within the analytical community 
through computer networking, increased Defense Logistics Studies 
Information Exchange (DLSIE) coverage of analytical efforts, published 
a procedural book on studies analyses and models, established an 
Operations Research Systems Analyst subprogram in the Engineer and 
Scientist career program and received the Army's Group Systems Analysis 
Award. 

(U) Actions taken to further strengthen the AMC Internal 
Controls Program were taken in the areas of program administration, 
training, written guidance to the staff in the field, interim checklist 
distribution and follow-on audits of corrective actions. 
Accomplishments were tracked throughout the year by quarterly reports 
and staff overview. Reported and projected accomplishments through the 
application of internal control principles were achieved in the areas 
of acquisition, foreign military sales, industrial preparedness, 
procurement, personnel, contracting, safety and automatic data 
processing. During the year the Army's program concept underwent a 
change. The change entailed the development of a functional checklist 

21 

Productivity Management Division historical submission, FY85. 



44 



for each of the Army regulations which prescribe controls. AMC 
fully supported the reorientation of the program and assisted in 
several checklist development efforts. Significant support was 
provided to the HQDA program effort in the areas of training and 
program development. 

(U) During the year the Office of Management and Analysis 
participated in a headquarters efficiency effort through restructuring 
the staff and command. This effort was undertaken in order to satisfy 
the Army's requirement for additional spaces, meet CSA's guidance, 
satisfy HQDA PBG direction, reduce layering and redundancy, and to 
reduce the number of high grade positions. The restructuring would be 
achieved over a three year period, beginning in FY86 and continuing 
through FY87-88. The resultant AMC on-board strength would match 
revised authorizations by the end of FY86. Also AMC would match 
existing overhires to authorized vacancies by that date. These results 
would be achieved through attrition with no reductions in force or 
individual downgrades. 

Analysis Division (U) 

Study of Specifications and Standards (U) 

(U) A study aimed at improving the development, maintenance, and 
application of specifications and standards was chartered by AMCDMA on 
1 July 1985 and completed by December 1985. The study group was 
composed of representatives from HQ AMC and AMSAA. The following areas 
were identified as requiring additional emphasis: automation, 
cost drivers, review process, training, source control drawing, and 
visibility. 

High Technology Command Functions (U) 

(U) This program was initiated in 1984 to transfer high 
technology solutions to common problems among MSCs. In 1985, the MSCs 
completed the review and adoption of projects from the 133 projects 
not subject to intensive management. A total of 83 projects were 
adopted at the MSC level; this represented an adoption rate of over 60 
percent. Eight projects were selected for intensive management. 

Management Review of US Army Satellite Communications Agency 
(SATCOMA) (U) 

(U) As a result of the conclusions reached in studies sponsored by 
Army DCSOPS and ACSIM regarding Army satellite communications, and also 
because of perceived problems with the development and acquisition 
strategies of SATCOMA 's programs, the Deputy Commanding General for 
Research, Development and Acquisition directed a management review of 
SATCOMA by HQ AMC. The review was conducted during September and 
October 1985 under the supervision of the Deputy for Management and 
Analysis. The study provided conclusions and recommendations regarding 
SATCOMA' s command placement, organizational structure, manpower, and 
equipment management. 



45 



Review of Navy and Army Materiel Organizations (U) 

(U) On 9 April 1985, Secretary of the Navy, Lehman, announced that 
the Naval Materiel Command (NAVMAT) would "simply disappear" on 9 May. 
How the Navy could abolish its materiel support headquarters with such 
alacrity was of natural concern to the Department of the Army. An 
analysis was conducted to examine the Navy decision. The study 
reviewed the history of Naval materiel support, and contrasted it with 
Army's materiel and logistics structure. It was concluded that NAVMAT 
and AMC were formed differently under different environments, operated 
differently and provided different value. 

Office of Management and Analysis Automation Plan (U) 

(U) Original Automation Plan of November 1984 was updated in 
October 1985 to cover addition of Mission and Organization Division to 
DMA, support for the System Analysis Project Office, and to include 
portable computers. The FY87-91 Acquisition Funding Profile was 
completed on 4 December 1984. BCE funds were found and a 16-user micro 
computer system procured for the Analysis Division. Two IBM PC-XTs 
were received by the Resource Analysis and Evaluation Division in 
December 1984. A terminal to the AMC computer was installed in the 
technical library in March 1985. The FY87 Office of Secretary of 
Defense-Productivity Improvement Funding Program (OSD-PIF) request was 
submitted in May 1985. 

Review and Analysis Division (U) 

AMC Internal Controls Program (U) 

(U) Over the past year, the US Army's program concept 
underwent a change, which entails the development of a functional 
checklist for each of the hundreds of Army regulations that prescribe 
controls. AMC supported the reorientation of the program and was 
assisting in several checklist development efforts. Significant 
support was provided to the HQDA program effort in the areas of 
training and program development. AMC also met on a periodic basis 
with HQDA staff functional proponents, such as Deputy Chief of Staff 
for Logistics and Deputy Chief of Staff for Research and Development to 
address plans for implementation of the revised concept, specifically 
in the area of lending support in the development of functional 
Internal Control Review Checklist. Actions were taken to further 
strengthen the AMC program in the areas of program administration, 
training, written guidance to the staff and field, interim checklist 
distribution, and follow-up audits of corrective actions. 
Accomplishments under the program were tracked throughout the year by 
quarterly reports and normal staff overview. 

(U) Reported and projected accomplishments through the 
application of internal control and principles were achieved in the 
areas of acquisition, foreign military sales, industrial preparedness, 
procurement, personnel, contracting, safety, and automatic data 



46 



processing. The command continued to build on the administrative 
foundation of the program. Valuable administrative policy guidance, 
operating instructions, and informational issuances were distributed 
and an active interchange of information was begun between the 
headquarters and its elements, to include training. 

(U) Lessons Learned Program . In May the Review and Analysis 
Division initiated an AMC Lessons Learned Pilot Program, which covered 
the integrated logistic support and force modernization fields and 
included three MSCs: AMCCOM, MICOM and TACOM. The pilot program was 
administered by the Materiel Readiness Support Activity (MRSA) with 
all automated data stored at the Defense Logistics Studies Information 
Exchange (DLSIE). MRSA submitted a proposed draft Lessons 
Learned regulation to HQ AMC for staff review and comment. 

(U) Program/Project/Product Management (PM) Criteria . Criteria 
for the termination of PM management offices and the transition of 
equipment from PM management to functional management were developed. 
The procedures for accomplishment of required actions were also 
developed. 

(U) Program/Project/Product Matrix Management . The development 
of the PM termination criteria led to an analysis of PM management 
methodologies. It was discovered that the separate PM TDA centralized 
management practices in effect were labor, facilities, and equipment. 
Centralized PM also resulted in extensive duplication of like functions 
being performed at the same location by a series of independent PM 
offices operating with separate TDAs; an excessive number of high grade 
positions were also discovered. It was concluded that the PM 
termination criteria would not be effective in the PM centralized 
management environment because PM personnel were assigned to separate 
PM TDAs on a permanent basis. Therefore termination of a PMO would 
result in the release of the civilians assigned to that office. 

(U) Action was initiated to cancel PM TDAs and reduce PM offices 
to management staffs only. All other PM personnel would be transferred 
to functional support organizational elements within the MSCs. PM 
would be fully supported by MSC functional organizational elements. A 
cost system was also introduced that required PMs to operate within a 
budget and cost system. 

(U) Four Year Development Concept . This project consisted of 
the identification of criteria and formulation of direction for MSCs to 
accelerate the weapon system development cycle to a four year period. 
The project included identification of 32 criteria items, formulation 
of a matrix to show specific responses from MSCs to the Commanding 
General's development criteria, and an assembly of a list of weapon 
system candidates from each MSC which were selected for the four year 
development cycle. A Commander's Guidance Statement (CGS) was also 
prepared to provide direction to MSC commanders and headquarters DCSs 
on responses expected to his directed actions. Task, assignments were 
prepared for tracking of weapons systems development status and the 
periodic reporting of their progress to the commanding general. 



47 



(U) Scientists and Engineers Involvement in the Research and 
Development Procurement Process at AMC Laboratories . This analysis 
examined that portion of procurement work accomplished by scientists 
and engineers at AMC laboratories in order to obtain required contract 
assistance from the private sector. The analysis measured their degree 
of involvement, manhours used per procurement package, manyears per 
laboratory center, and manyear utilization trends over a three year 
period. The analysis also examined operating procedures, document 
preparation, and problem areas. The analysis also developed possible 
courses of action to minimize the non-technical workload for scientists 
and engineers. 

(U) Comprehensive Review of Reports . The Comprehensive Review 
of Reports, initiated at the Commanding General's direction on 31 
August 198A, was completed on 30 April 1985. Over 900 reports were 
reviewed. Of these, 300 were deleted from the AMC reports register as 
obsolete or unnecessary requirements. The AMC staff negotiated 
cancellations of four Department of the Army (DA) and two Department of 
Defense (DOD) reports. Cancellation or modification of 27 other DA or 
higher level reports was recommended to HQDA. Responsibility for the 
reports control function at HQ AMC was passed to the Deputy Chief of 
Staff for Information Management (DCSIM) on 20 May 1985. DCSIM was 
tasked to revitalize the reports control program in AMC and to follow 
up on recommendations and incompleted actions resulting from the 
review. 

(U) Army Integrated Publishing Network (AIPN) . In October 1984 
the Commanding General tasked the Deputy for Management and Analysis to 
look at the proposed Army structure of integrated publishing, recommend 
a headquarters organization for publishing/publications management, and 
apply a similar analysis leading to an integrated structure for field 
elements. This office prepared a milestone chart indicating that a 
separate headquarters publishing management function could be in 
operation by August 1985. Personnel and manpower resources drawn from 
the headquarters staff who were then engaged in managing the publishing 
and publications functions were recommended as the base from which to 
develop the new integrated publishing organization. The completed 
analysis proposed the establishment of a provisional headquarters 
element placed under the direction of the Deputy Chief of Staff for 
Supply, Maintenance, and Transportation (AMCSM) as an interim step 
pending full integration at a later date under the Deputy Chief of 
Staff for Information Management. In February 1985 a Summary Sheet was 
prepared for AMC Chief of Staff approval to establish a provisional 
publishing management organization under the AMCSM. An alternative 
proposal from the Deputy Chief of Staff for Information Management 
(AMCIM) to establish publishing management directly under AMCIM was 
approved by General Thompson. 

(U) Command Review and Analysis . HQ AMC Command Performance 
Indicator Review (CPIR) System, established by the Commanding General 
(CG) AMC, in August 1977, was restructured into the Command Review and 



48 






Analysis (R&A) System. This new process was the primary system for 
measuring performance toward the accomplishment of AMC's mission, 
goals and objectives. 

(U) Performance Indicator Review Process . A complete review of 
all R&A performance and workload indicators used in the Command R&A 
commenced during FY85. The reviews evaluate R&A input in relation to 
missions and functions and identify indicators that reflect 
performance/workload for each area. 

(U) Kirwan Report II . The CG AMC directed that an independent 
board be formed to review the doctrine, practices, and procedures 
relative to the overall effectiveness and adequacy of current programs 
to assure the production of top quality products during the acquisition 
process. The board's report contained 16 issues and a total of 58 
recommendations. At the request of the DCS for Product Assurance and 
Testing, the R&A Division assisted in this effort by developing a 
management system to track the progress of accomplishment of the 
recommendations and to serve as a basis for periodic reporting to the 
CG AMC. 

Studies Management Division (U) 

(U) Systems Analysis Offices (SAO) Review . An analysis of AMC 
MSC's SAOs was conducted to compare sizing and structure, develop a 
"core" organization structure, develop "type" functional statements, 
and make recommendations on staffing regarding total number, skill mix, 
and military /civilian mix. A final report was submitted to the CG in 
January 1985. In a letter, dated 24 January 1985, distributing the 
review package, the MSCs were to ". . . develop a plan to bring your 
systems analysis office into line with the recommendations insofar as 
possible." The MSCs expressed general agreement with the 
recommendations presented in the review and in some cases had already 
taken positive actions to improve their SAOs. This effort did not 
result in identical SAOs at every MSC, but it caused each command to 
take a serious look at its approach to, and use of, systems analysis. 

(U) AMC-R 672-3, Commanding General's Award for Installation 
Excellence . The R&A Division which was the proponent for AMC-R 672-3, 
revised it in September 1985. The award recognizes an 
installation/activity which has made outstanding achievements in 
productivity and efficiency. Out of eight nominations which were 
received for the first award presented under this regulation, Anniston 
Army Depot was awarded first place. Runners-up were the Materiel 
Readiness Support Activity and Sharpe Army Depot. The award was 
presented at the Commander's First Annual Recognition Day ceremony, 23 
May 1985. 

Studies Management Division (U) 

(U) Managing Analytical Support Services (MASS) . Analytical 
Support Services are managed under the provisions of AR 5-14 and 
consist of individual appointed and contracted experts and consultants, 



49 



contracted studies and analyses, and contracts for professional and 
management support services. DOD's use of these services continued to 
receive congressional scrutiny and was highlighted every year in the 
Defense Appropriations Act. All AMC contracts for analytical support 
services were supported by a formal Management Decision Document 
approved by a General Officer or a member of the Senior Executive 
Service. AMC's FY85 Analytical Support Services program amounted to 
$47.2 million in 64 contracts. 

(U) Army Commanders' Conference (ACC) . The Chief of Staff, 
Army (CSA), schedules three ACCs each year. Two conferences, in the 
spring and summer, include only the four-star Army Commanders (TRADOC, 
AMC, FORSCOM, USAREUR, KOREA). The purpose of the Spring Conference, 
held on 28-30 March 1985, was to obtain four-star commanders' 
recommendations on what should and should not be resourced. The Summer 
Conference (12-13 August 1985) was related to budget, POM, and 
productivity issues. The purpose of the Fall 85 Conference (16-19 
October) was to set goals and to plan for the future with emphasis on 
the current and near years and to receive commanders ' views on the Army 
Plan and their plans. 

(U) At the Spring Conference, the AMC Commander, General 
Thompson, discussed issues such as Reliability, Availability, 
Maintainability-Durability (RAM-D);. unreasonable pricing; Support of 
Operations Forces (SOF); test and evaluation process; sample data 
collection (SDC); and multi-media satellite education network. 

(U) At the Summer Conference, General Thompson discussed three 
issues: Results of the Headquarters AMC Staff Review; Force 
Modernization; and Acquisition Climate and Impact on Procurement. The 
theme of his presentation at the fall ACC was "How You Can Help Me To 
Help You." His two key concerns were safety of items supplied and 
efficient managements of resources. 

(U) AMC Commanders' Conference (AMCCC) . Similar to the concept 
of three AMCCC each year, the Commander, AMC convenes three conferences 
per year, normally subsequent to each ACC. The Spring Conference was 
held at TECOM on 9-10 April 1985 and the Summer Conference at CECOM on 
12-13 August 1985. The Fall Conference was hosted by the Commander, 
DESCOM at Corpus Christi on 8-9 January 1986. The agenda for the first 
day of the Spring Conference included the following topics: 
Leadership; AMC Test Policy (presented by General Thompson) and 
status; HQ AMC Test Information Center; Continuous Evaluation Handbook; 
Certification of Test Facilities; Test and Evaluation Functional Area 
Assessment; Environmental Stress Screening; AMC Quality Circle Program; 
Subject Matter Assessment Program; Warranties; TROSCOM's Role as Lead 
MSC for SOF Support; Lessons Learned in Quality; AMC Savings Tracking 
System; Audit alert Network Matrix; Transition to the Information 
Systems Command, Army Materiel Plan Modernization; AMC LOG 21 MAA 
Status; AMC Strategic Long-Range Plan; Scientific and Engineering 
Personnel Initiatives; Army CM/CCM and Survivability Management 
Concept; Materiel for Low Intensity Conflict Situations; Position 
Classification; Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA); TACOM 



50 



Reporting Acquisition Control System (TRACS); Serial Number Tracking 
System; Depot Maintenance; Army Command Control System (ACCS) System 
Engineering Program; Force Modernization/Displaced Equipment Lessons 
Learned; Historical Review of Workloads (Funds Execution vs Personnel) 
and an Executive Session. In the Executive Session, General Thompson 
discussed: OCONUS Travel; PM/Materiel System Assessment Program; Green 
Book Weapons Directory; AMC FY84 Sick Leave Usage; Implementation of 
AMCMEA Task Force Report and Secure Environment Contracting. 

The Army Study Program (U) 

(U) Studies and Analyses contribute to a greater understanding of 
relevant issues and lead to conclusions and recommendations for use by 
decision-makers. AR 5-5, Army Studies and Analyses, dated 15 October 
1981, established policies, procedures, and responsibilities for the 
administration and management of the Army Study system. AMC's 
participation in the Army Study Program is summarized in the table 
below: 



FY85 Study Program 



Number of Studies 



In-House 
Contract 
FY85 Resource Estimates 
In-House 
RDTE Contract 



47 

7 



44.4 Professional Staff Years 
$581K 



(U) Quality Control of Analytical Studies . AMC studies are the 
basis for important decisions on weapons systems, logistics support and 
internal management. This places a responsibility on the Command, its 
analytical organizations, and its analysts to produce quality studies. 
Accordingly, quality control of analytical studies was one of AMC's 
major initiatives. 

(U) A policy letter on quality control was distributed to major 
subordinate commands, separate reporting activities, and HQ AMC Deputy 
Chiefs of Staff and Separate Staff Office Chiefs. The letter provided 
key criteria that had to be addressed during the study process, stated 
review procedures to be followed to assure product quality before 
distribution, and directed all addressees to report actions they had 
taken to upgrade the quality of AMC studies. 

Army Materiel Command Directions (AMC/D) (U) 

(U) DARCOM Directions (D2) were renamed AMC Directions (AMC/D) 
Thrusts on 1 August 1985. On 23 August General Thompson, Commander, 
AMC, directed the Deputy for Management and Analysis to review and 
revise the 26 AMC/D Thrusts. Each Deputy Chief of Staff or Office 
Chief responsible for an AMC/D Thrust in turn reviewed his 
respective thrust; and recommendations and lessons learned were 
incorporated in the 3QFY85 and 4QFY85 AMC/D Thrusts. 



51 



AMC Program Plan (U) 

(U) Guidance for new policy and procedures for the AMC Program 
Plan was issued to the major subordinate commands, separate reporting 
activities (SRA), and Program/Project Managers on 9 July 1985. Each 
MSC, SRA and PM was tasked to develop and submit a Program Plan by 15 
October 1985, later extended to 22 November 1985. The AMC Program Plan 
was to be based on the MSC, SRA and PM Program Plans as well as the 
headquarters' submission. HQ AMC would develop a plan of action for 
FY86 based on the AMC objectives. The AMC Program Plan was expected to 
be published in 2QFY86, and would directly impact the AMC/D Thrusts. 22 

Technical Library (U) 

Automation (U) 

(U) The HQ AMC Technical Library advanced its long term 
commitment to automation during FY85 by securing an ADM-42 from the 
Analysis Division and by completing the required paperwork to hard wire 
the ADM-42 terminal into the UNIX mainframe in G-3. Additionally, all 
staff were enrolled in one of the week-long "UNIX for functional users" 
courses offered by Civilian Personnel Office. By year's end new 
computer furniture had arrived and was installed to complete the 
library's online work area and a Wyse terminal was purchased and 
installed to update the ADM-42. To prepare for the completion of all 
library services online, the technical library staff arranged and 
participated in demonstrations from three largest library vendors: 
GEAC, DYNIX and LS-2000. Each of the three vendors had an integrated 
library system that was capable of converting all library operations to 
online. These operations included the card catalog, circulation, 
reserves, overdues, and acquisition functions. Administrative 
paperwork to complete the library's total online conversion was 
expected to continue through FY86 with target date installation in 
FY87. 

Library Tours/Orientation (U) 

(U) The Technical Library has a continuing educational role to 
explain its resources and services to HQ AMC employees. Every month 
one of the librarians briefs new AMC personnel at the new employee 
orientation. In addition to these informal briefings, the Technical 
Library scheduled formal tours and orientations for Deputy Chiefs of 
Staff and Chiefs from 18 March to 18 April 1985. The tours and online 
computer demonstrations were so popular that, at the suggestion of one 
DCS, the program was expanded to include all action officers. Eight 
tours were scheduled for action officers completing week-long courses 
at Fort Belvoir from 13-16 May and four additional tours were scheduled 
over 16-17 September 1985. Online demonstrations were a part of the 
tours. 



22 

Office of Management & Analysis, historical submission, FY85, 



52 



Online Services (U) 

(U) DIALOG . DIALOG is a powerful commercial network of over 
250 databases consisting of more than 100 million records of 
information. To support the mission and function needs of AMC's 
personnel, the Technical Library performed a total of 183 DIALOG 
literature searches online. 

(U) DTIC . The Defense Technical Information Center, located at 
Cameron Station, is the online database network of military and 
contractor generated reports, and used to produce 60 custom tailored 
bibliographies for HQ AMC personnel. Two-hundred-twenty-eight 
documents were ordered as a result of library patron requests on paper 
or microfiche copies. 

(U) DLSIE . Defense Logistics Studies Information Exchange, 
located at Fort Lee, Virginia produces custom-tailored bibliographies 
on a variety of logistics and defense related subjects. Requests are 
made by librarians in response to specific requests by HQ AMC 
personnel. Materials are ordered via autovon, and all reports are 
procured on microfiche. Twenty searches were completed in FY85. 

Collection (U) 

(U) Acquisitions . One thousand two hundred ninety-one 
clothbound and 330 paperbound bibliographic volumes were added to the 
collection. Concentration was in the areas of management, computer 
science, military science, and reference. 

(U) Weeding . One thousand five hundred fifteen clothbound and 
273 paperbound volumes were weeded from the collection and transferred 
to other AMC libraries or sent through the excess property process to 
the Library of Congress. Most materials were weeded because they were 
no longer current, had been updated by newer editions, or were badly 
worn. In preparation for an integrated library automation system, 
1,000 titles were examined for usefulness of information and either 
discarded or added to the automated Online Computer Library Center 
(OCLC) computer. The OCLC system enabled libraries to borrow and loan 
materials to each other and increases inventory control. 

(U) Congressional Information Service (CIS) . A complete set of 
microfiche materials consisting of congressional documents for CY84 was 
added to the collection. CY85 materials were being received monthly 
and added to this new collection as well. Senate, House of 
Representatives, Joint Publications, and Public Laws were arranged by 
subject with complete cross reference for easy access. 

(U) Bibliographies/Displays . During FY85 the Technical Library 
prepared printed, in-house bibliographies for subject areas which were 
of interest and which significantly assisted AMC personnel with 
information needs. Bibliographies included such subjects as UNIX and 



53 



Leadership; a monthly New Books List; a new bulletin board was prepared 
monthly; and a Black History Display was prepared for February 1985. 

(U) Staffing/Training . A new Chief of the Technical Library 
and one new technician were recruited during the second quarter of 
FY85. Due to the large number of daily reference questions and 
requests for online literature searches, one technician slot was 
converted from the 1411 series to the professional 1410 series. 3 

Resource Evaluation Division (U) 

Regulations Published (U) 

(U) Two regulations were published in FY85. AMC-R 10-2, HQ AMC 
Organization, Mission and Functions Regulation, was published April 
1985 as a result of the FY84 reorganization. AMC-R 5-6, Matrix 
Management, was published in April 1985 to incorporate the information 
(Chapter 2) of DARCOM-R 10-2, HQ DARCOM Organization, Mission and 
Functions Manual. Chapter 2 (Matrix Management) was deleted from 
DARCOM-R 10-2 when superseded by AMC-R 10-2. 

Commercial Activities (CA) (U) 

(U) Four CA studies were completed in FY85. The US Army 
Missile Command (MIC0M), Redstone Arsenal Support Activity (RASA), 
Huntsville, Alabama contractor became operational on 1 October 1985. 
The other three resulted in continued in-house performance: MIC0M 
automatic data processing data entry/data transcription function, 
Huntsville, Alabama, most efficient organization (MEO) became 
operational on 1 October 1985; the US Army Management Engineering 
Training Activity (AMETA), training support function, Fort Lee, 
Virginia, MEO, became operational on 1 October 1985; and the US Army 
Armament, Munitions, and Chemical Command (AMCC0M), data entry/data 
transcription function, Rock Island, Illinois, MEO, became operational 
in December 1985. 

Separate Reporting Activities (SRA) Study (U) 

(U) This office initiated a management study of AMC SRA in 1984 
at the request of the AMC Commander. During 1985, the data collection 
and analysis effort, begun in 1984, continued. At the study's 
inception, its scope extended to 42 SRA. As a result of the study, the 
number was expected to be reduced to 28 by 1 January 1986. Another 
result of the study was AMC Command Group approval of findings and 
recommendations, applicable to performance indicators and other 
management improvements, for 10 of the SRA. Other products under 
development were an SRA Standard Resource Management System and SRA 
Customer Satisfaction Surveys as a means of evaluating the quality of 
SRA performance. ^ 

23 Technical Library, historical submission, FY85. 

Resource Evaluation Division historical submission, FY85. 



54 



Mission and Organization Division (U) 

Reorganization and Redesignations (U) 

(U) Reorganization of US Army Electronics Research and 
Development Command (ERADCOM )~ ERADCOM was provisionally redesignated 
the US Army Laboratory Command (LABCOM) on 1 July 1985. As a result, 
LABCOM received operational control over US Army Materiel and Mechanics 
Research Center (AMMRC), Watertown, Massachusetts; US Army Ballistic 
Research Laboratory (BRL), Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), Maryland; US 
Human Engineering Laboratory (HEL), APG, Maryland; and US Army Research 
Office (ARO), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. All were 
transferred from HQ AMC. The redesignation and reorganization of 
ERADCOM was to become permanent on 1 October 1985. 5 

(U) Reorganization of US Army Communications-Electronics Command 
(CECOM) . The following were removed from HQ ERADCOM and placed under 
the operational control of CECOM on 1 July 1985: 

US Army Night Vision and Electro-Optics Laboratory (NVEOL), Fort 

Belvoir, Virginia. 

US Army Combat Surveillance and Target Acquisition Laboratories 

(CSTAL), Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. 

US Army Electronics Warfare Laboratory (EWL), Vint Hill Farms 

Station, Warrenton, Virginia. 

US Army Electronics Research and Development Command, Technical 

Support Activity, Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. 

US Army Electronics Research and Development Command, Flight Test 

Activity, Lakehurst, New Jersey. 

US Army Electronics Research and Development Command, Tactical 

Software Center (ETSSC), Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. 

US Army Office of the Product Manager for Modular Integrated 

Communication Navigation System (MICNS), Fort Monmouth, New 

Jersey. 
These changes were accomplished without any physical change of 
location. " 

(U) USAMC Intelligence Materiel Activity (USAIMA) . USAIMA, 
organized on 15 January 1985, as a subordinate activity of the Deputy 
Chief of Staff for Intelligence (DCSI), HQ AMC. Its mission is to 
perform that part of the AMC mission pertaining to the quick reaction 
development, modification, fabrication, procurement, provisioning, 
maintenance and life cycle management of specialized non-standard 
intelligence and security materiel, and related processes and 
techniques required by US Army Intelligence and Security activities and 
other DOD and governmental agencies. Technical disciplines Involved 
are electronics, photo-optics, security systems and mechanical devices. 



2 \ Permanent Order 51-1, 19 Jul 85. 
26 Ibid. 



55 



Manpower authorizations for the new organization were provided from 
within AMC resources, especially US Army Electronic Warfare 
Laboratory. 

(U) Light Helicopter Family (LHX) . The LHX Program was organized 
on 1 March 1985, with the mission to exercise executive directline 
authority for the centralized management of the LHX program. The 
mission responsibility of the PM LHX is to plan, direct and control the 
allocation and utilization of all resources authorized for execution of 
the program. Further responsibility is to develop, test, program, 
produce, deploy and support the LHX throughout its life cycle, execute 
the LHX program to assure that scheduled constraints are not violated, 
train operating and support personnel, control costs and manage 
functional support provided to the program. Manpower resources to 
support the PM LHX were transferred from HQ AVSCOM. 28 

(U) PM for Amphibious and Watercraft (AWC) . AWC was organized 
on 3 October 1984 and assigned to TROSCOM. 29 

(U) PM for Division Air Defense (DIVAD) Gun System . The US 
Army Office of the PM, SGT York Air Defense Gun System was organized on 
1 October 1984 and assigned to AMCCOM. 30 

(U) Production Base Modernization Activity (PBMA) . The US Army 
Munitions Production Base Modernization Agency (MPBMA) was redesignated 
PBMA on 1 October 1984 and assigned to AMCCOM. 31 

(U) PM, Tank Systems . The US Army Office of the PM for Tank 
Systems was established on 25 March 1985 with the mission to exercise 
full-line management authority and responsibility for development, 
acquisition, fielding and support of assigned tank 
vehicles/systems/programs. The PM plans, directs and controls 
associated TACOM resources to ensure effective program accomplishment. 
Manpower authorizations for the new unit were provided from within AMC 
and TACOM resources (OPM, M60 Tanks, 0PM Abrams Tank System, and HQ 
TACOM). 32 

(U) PM, Tactical Airborne Remotely Piloted Vehicle/Drone Systems 
(RPV) . The US Army office of the PM for Tactical Airborne RPV was 
reassigned on 26 August 1985 from HQ AVSCOM to HQ MICOM. The physical 
location of the main duty station was changed from St. Louis, Missouri 
to Redstone, Alabama. 



27 P.O. 12-1, 28 Feb 85. 



28 
29 
30 
31 
32 



P.O. 18-1, 22 Mar 85. 

P.O. 20-1, 5 Apr 86. 

P.O. 6-1, 31 Jan 85. 

Ibid. 

P.O. 39-2, 17 Jun 85. 



33 AMCR-10-2, HQ AMC Organization and Missions, 1 Apr 85 



56 



(U) PM, Army Helicopter Improvement Program (AHIP) . The US 
Army Office of the PM for the Advanced Scout Helicopter (ASH) was 
redesignated the Office of the PM AHIP on 21 August 1985. 34 

Housing Management Division (U) 

Maintenance and Repair (M&R) . (U) 

(U) In FY85, increased funding from DA in the amount of $31.2 
million in the maintenance and repair account for AMC family housing 
greatly improved the condition of family quarters. The Deferred 
Maintenance and Repair Program (DMAR) which had been totally 
unmanageable was aggressively attacked. Increased emphasis and funding 
from HQDA led to a reduction of DMAR from $22.4 million in FY84 to 
$13.9 million at the end of FY85. The HQDA goal of reaching the 
manageable DMAR level was expected to be reached by the end of FY87. 

(U) The cost of ownership for AMC family housing stabilized 
indicating that installations were fully managing their AFH budgets and 
were finally planning/programing their M&R requirements both routine 
and major projects. HQ AMC retained management of DMAR in order to 
assure that it did not increase. 

(U) High Cost Quarters . In 1984 high cost quarters and General 
Officer Quarters (GOQ) came under congressional scrutiny and new 
guidelines were established. Any quarters with major maintenance and 
repair exceeding $15,000 per year or GOQs exceeding $25,000 for 
operations and maintenance per year had to be forwarded to Congress for 
review and approval. 

(U) The quarters for FY84 and FY85 were approved as required and 
were repaired. In many instances, once repairs were accomplished the 
DUs no longer fell into the high cost category. 

(U) Several historical quarters fell into the category of high 
cost also. HQDA sponsored a study of these quarters to determine the 
existing conditions and future actions to be taken. 

(U) Improvements and Construction . HQ AMC was well on its way to 
eliminating its substandard housing problems and improving its 
inventory. The FY84 replacement of Chesapeake Gardens Phases 1 and 2, 
APG (208 units) were expected to be occupied in January 1986. The 
remaining 439 units were approved for construction in FY85. 
Construction upgrading the 37 substandard units at Letterkenny Army 
Depot (LAD) began in September 1985. The turnkey contract for 80 new 
units at Sierra Army Depot to replace 125 substandard privately owned 
Wherry units was awarded in September 1985. Actions to buy back the 
125 units was pending before Congress. Congressional approval to 
upgrade the Wherry housing at Fort Monmouth was also granted at 
$30,000. Final project design indicated reprograming was necessary. 
The project was resubmitted to Congress as a specific line item with a 



57 



per-DU authorization of $40,000. Approval was received November 1985. 
Condition upgrade of AMC housing and projected success of the program 
are indicated in the chart on the following page. 

(U) Housing Operations Management System (HOMES) . The HOMES 
system was being converted from VIABLE to INTEL. Redstone Arsenal and 
Aberdeen Proving Ground were designated to receive HOMES in FY86. 
Equipment buys were scheduled by HQDA. 

Training (U) 

(U) In FY85 eight Army Housing Management courses were held at 
the Engineer School at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Forty-three AMC persons 
received training at these courses. 

(U) During the FY85 Housing Management Career Program (HMCP) 
Planning Board meeting, a major restructuring of the entire housing 
curriculum into basic, intermediate and advanced courses was approved. 
Three-person committees (including MACOM and installation functional 
and non-functional experts) were to be established during FY86 for each 
course. They would restructure courses to meet careerists' needs. 
Implementation would take place during FY87. 

Retail Logistics Division (U) 

(U) During FY85 the Services Division was redesignated the Retail 
Logistics Division to better describe the functions for which it is 
responsible. 

(U) Excess . Under the Retail Logistics Division guidance, 
15,692 line items of equipment valued at $14.4 million dollars were 
declared excess by AMC installations and activities. A total of 540 
line items valued at $5 million (including 109 nontactical vehicles 
valued at $2.3 million) were redistributed to meet command mission 
requirements, in lieu of new procurement. The remainder of the excess 
items were made available to other DOD/government activities through 
property disposal channels. 

(U) AMC Logistics Excellence Program (ALEP) . The AMC Logistics 
Excellence Program, launched in July 1985, paralleled the DOD Model 
Installation Program, and yielded more than 300 AMC ideas to improve 
base-level management of working and living conditions. Thirteen AMC 
installations/activities were selected to participate in this program 
for a three-year period. They were: 

AMCCOM 

McAlester Army Ammunition Plant 
Rock Island Arsenal 

AVSCOM 

St. Louis Area Support Center 

35 Ltr, AMCEN-S, subj: AMC Logistics Excellence Program, 18 Jun 85. 



58 



« ^-^ 

2 m 

a. 

00 U. 



3 UJ 



C3 

CL 

I 



co — 

oc o 



cc 

UJ 



cs 

CL 

CO 

LU 

C3 
OC 

o 



5C 

«^ 
LU 

flu 
< 
CO 



CD 
CO 



=3 
O 

2 
a? z 
a. o 

< 2 

C3 



=3 
O 



O 

£ s 

«*►-•£ 

LU **■ 



O CC 



o3 



CO 



CO 
LU 
CO 

< 



5 (t 



_ z 

LU LU 

> LU 
LU £ 

<"j 
OC 

C3 C3 

ft. Z 



o 
cc 



>- 
oc 



LU 

o 

< 

a. 

LU 

OC 



>- 
cc 

cc 

LU 



iS CS 
OL =5 



d To 5 

LU LU 52 
ft- CO g 

oc „ 

< (5 LU 

ac ft. z 
CO >- o 

■JT "ft 

2 ccTo 

2(3Z 

> lu = 



o 



?* ^ 



i| 

LU £fl 

< Q 
OC 

C5 O 

ft. z 



CO 

CO 






flu C3 

<t LU 

^ CO 

- CO 

5 «3 

=3 = X 

O ffl LU 

2 2lu 

Z CO 

o >■ 

* o i- 

»-' z£ 

"- LU t 

H- > Z 

< Z =3 



C3 

Z 

to 

o 



LU 

S 

LU 

o 

< 

-J 

a. 

LU 

CC 

CM 

s 

CO 



CS Z 
CO < 

"> = Uj 

LU LU CS 

a aa 
oc cc £ 

C9 C9 1j 
ft. ft. LU 

3 SCO 



cs 



« 



Sg CO "" 

LUCSO 
C3 CL CO 

d. oc 
cc < "^ 

ft. Z3 uj 



o 

CO 



uj **Q 

a u.^ 

s °? 

CS c£ CO 

flu CO =3 

=3 «5j CO 



CO 






— o 


oo 


r^ 


z °* 


o 


o 




CM 


r» 



o 
co 
in 



o> 


o 


O) 


CO 


oo 


o> 



in oo 
oo oo 

CM CO 
CO 



o 

LU 
CO 

ec 
o 



so 



C/9 

LU 

CO 



CO 

►- 
o 


















< 
















h- 


>- CO 


** 


LO 


CO 


r^ 


CO 


en 


O 


LU 00 


00 


CO 


00 


CO 


CO 


CO 


H- 



© 
oc 

0L 



59 



CECOM 

Headquarters Installation Support Activity 

DESCOM 

Corpus Christi Army Depot 
Letterkenny Army Depot 
Red River Army Depot 

LABCOM 

Harry Diamond Laboratory 

MICOM 

Redstone Arsenal Support Activity 

TACOM 

TACOM Support Activity, Selfridge 

TECOM 

Jefferson Proving Ground 
White Sands Missile Range 

TROSCOM 

Natick Research and Development Center 

(U) The AMC Retail Logistics Overview Report was established 
during FY85 by direction of the CG. It consisted of retail logistics 
performance charts and its objective was to stimulate competition among 
the major subordinate commands/installations and provide a management 
tool for the MSCs and HQ AMC staff. The report was patterned after a 
similar semi-annual report prepared by TRADOC, and was sent to all MSC 
commanders. 

Support Division (U) 

(U) The HQ Support Division was established 19 August 1984 to 
include the Supply and Transportation, Audio-Visual and Graphics 
Branches. On 1 October 1985 the Audio-Visual Branch and Graphics 
Branch were transferred to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Information 
Management. 

(U) More than 2,100 requisitions were processed by the 
Acquisitions Branch during FY85. In April 1985 a severe shortage of 
money caused a backlog and only priority requisitions were processed. 
Over 350 service calls were placed and acted upon for equipment and 
furniture repair. 

(U) A wall to wall Inventory was conducted by I&SA and AMC 
personnel during the September-October 1984 period. The property book 
was automated and the manual property book was discontinued in November 
1984. In December 1985, after a year of operation, the Inspector 
General, AMC inspected the property book and recommended that manual 
operation be reinstituted. 



60 



Facilities Division (U) 



Minor MCA (U) 



(U) Ten AMC construction projects were awarded in FY85, totaling 
$6.8 million in combined program funds: 



Installation 



PN 



Project 



Program 
Amount ($000) 



Pine Bluff Arsenal 



84E Toxic Change House 
Conversion 



869 



Rock Island Arsenal 



Picatinny Arsenal 



Letterkenny AD 



96E Rehabilitate Four 
Buildings/Mop Shop 

157E Bldg Alter-Health/ 
Dental Clinic 

131E SCIF Addition B3 



836 

806 
325 



Aberdeen Proving 
Ground 


328E 


Alter/Modify Weapon 
Process Shop 


805 


Letterkenny AD 


127E 


Convert Building to Admin 


800 


Crane Army Ammo 
Activity 


13E 


Modify Projectile 
Loading Plant 


826 


New Cumberland Army 
Depot 


80E 


Child Development Center 


337 


Fort Rucker 


265E 


ADP Building 


329 


Korea (various) 


980E 


Upgrade Com-Elec/ 
Cal Test 


903 






Total $6 


,836 



MCA (U) 

(U) Twenty-eight AMC construction projects were authorized and 
funded in the Military Construction Authorization and Appropriation 
Acts of 1985, which provided $236,270,000 for construction in AMC. 



61 



AMC FY85 MCA Program ($000) (U) 



Program 



Installation 


PN 


Project 


Amount 


Aberdeen PG 


128 


CB Defense Lab 


$20,000 




263 


Vibration Test Facility 


4,950 






Chapel/Child Care Center (MWR) 


4,950 




255 


Barracks 


17,800 


Anniston AD 


96 


Tank Test Rack Modification 


2,950 


Corpus Christ! AD 


60 


Composite Blade Test 








Facility 


2,200 


Crane AAA 


9 


Ammo Surveillance Facility 


3,600 


Fort Monmouth 


158 


Operations Building 


3,600 




148 


AC Gen Instructional Bldg 


4,050 




159 


Tactical Equipment Shop 


2,900 




150 


Barracks Modernization 


5,100 



New Cumberland AD 



78 Site Acquisition/ 
Preparation 



7,800 



Picatinny Ars 


121 


Regional Sewer Connection 


(WPC) 6,400 




114 


Water Treatment Plant 




3,000 


1 


156 


Railroad Acquisition 




380 


Pine Bluff Ars 


64 


Water Treatment Plant 




2,550 


Radford AAP 


60 


Red Water Disposal (WPC) 




26,000 


Red River AD 


121 


Technical Training Facility 


830 


Redstone Ars 


303 


MIA Facility Addition 




1,900 


Rock Island Ars 


86 


REARM, Phase II 




44,000 




82 


Admin Bldg Mod, Phase III 




6,900 


Seneca AD 


86 


TSADS 




6,900 


Sharpe AD 


85 


Western Distribution Ctr 




49,000 


Production Base 


Support 


(U) 







(U) Eighteen projects in the Production Base Support Program 
included major construction funded from Procurement Appropriations in 
FY85. The total cost of construction was nearly $48 million, as 
follows: 



62 



FY85 Funded Projects (U) 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

3852169 Fire Projection, Morton Thiokol 

3852209 Rocket Fac Mod, Morton Thiokol 

4856036 PSER, DATP 

7858174 PSER, Stratford AEP 

4852006 Mod/Exp, MZAD 

4850021 Site Security, MZAD 

5855328-15 Access Platform, HAAP 

5852199 Coal Handling, HAAP 

5852439 Prod Improvements, HAAP 

5852054 Mod Comp C-4 Fac, HAAP 

5852159 Prod Chrg Bldg, INAAP 

5855333-13 Blow Out Roofs, IAAP 

5855333-16 Envir Contr Sys, IAAP 

5852507 Chem Lab, LAAP 

5852229 120mm Prop Blend, RAAP 

5855326-13 Repl Barricades, RAAP 

5855326-21 Repl Barricades, RAAP 

5852359 Water Distr Sys, Scranton AAP 

TOTAL 



FUNDED FY85($M) 

.250 
7.8 
1.1 

.300 
13.9 
2.2 

.230 
7.0 

.910 
3.9 
1.9 

.690 
1.1 
1.6 

.460 
2.150 

.330 
2.050 

47.87 million 



Energy Program (U) 

(U) FY85 consumption of Facilities Energy experienced an increase 
over FY84. As a consequence, AMC exceeded DA's FY85 target by 
approximately 800,000 MBTU. Three MSCs (CEC0M, TECOM and TR0SC0M) 
attained their respective targets in Facility Energy and three MSCs 
(AVSC0M, DESCOM and LABC0M), while missing their respective targets, 
reduced or equaled their prior year consumption. Mobility Energy 
consumption decreased in FY85 resulting in AMC attaining DA's FY85 
target by more than 775,000 MBTU. Results are shown below: 





FY85 


FY85 


PERCENT 




C0MSUMPTI0N 


DA TARGET 


CHANGE 




(MBTU) 


(MBTU) 




Facilities /Process 


53,300,645 


52,500,000 


+ 1.5% 


Mobility 


2,223,516 


3,000,000 


- 25.9% 


Total 


55,524,161 


55,500,000 


+ 0.04 



(U) FY85 Facilities Energy Goal for AMC was revised by DA from 
43.5 trillion BTU to 52.5, following a reassessment of the Army's 
consumption trend and square footage changes since the FY75 base year. 
That analysis indicated a higher absolute BTU consumption could be 



63 



accommodated, and still meet Executive Order 12003 in FY85. The 
revision for AMC was based on mission growth, recent trends in energy 
consumption, and the judgment of the Army Energy Office as to the 
quality of effort in AMC to save energy. 

(U) Helping to portray AMC's situation was a study performed by 
the Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL). This study 
produced process energy models based on computerized regression 
analysis of such variables as production equivalents, labor hours, weather 
and other factors for which records were available. These models permit 
AMC to analyze the impact of production variables on energy consumption 
and forcast future consumption. This technique was briefed to DA and DOD 
energy managers and accepted as a viable management tool. DOD 
subsequently recommended other Services look at the feasibility of 
employing similar management techniques. 

(U) Capital Investment Programs to make buildings more energy 
efficient received continued emphasis. Lack of funding in the tight 
OMA/PA budgets was still a serious obstacle in implementing projects 
identified through the Energy Engineering Analysis Program (EEAP). The 
MCA appropriations for the Energy Conservation Investment Program (ECIP) 
also continued to fall short of the requirement. AMC initially proposed 
28 ECIP projects for FY87 valued at more than $25 million, of which three 
projects worth approximately $1.6 million remained In the final DA 
program. Moreover, the survival rate was Incorrect, out-of-date, or 
overly-optimistic savings-to-investment ratios in EEAP-based projects. 
Sharply curtailed ECIP dollar guidance for FY87 forced many projects into 
FY88 and subsequent years. DESCOM required each depot to set aside 10 
percent of its Annual Work Plan for energy-saving projects. 

(U) Energy Awareness activities received continued emphasis through 
CG messages, letters, commanders' calls, and field trips. Major 
importance was attached to low-cost or no-cost management actions and 
awareness programs. The DA Energy Awareness Seminar was brought to: 
Radford AAP, Holston AAP, Picatinny Arsenal, Rock Island Arsenal, Detroit 
Arsenal, Sunflower AAP, Letterkenny AD, Red River AD, Anniston AD, New 
Cumberland AD, Lexington-Blue Grass AD, Ft. Monmouth, and Yuma PG. 
Several other installations arranged seminars, exhibits and other events 
to promote the conservation ethic. 

(U) Awards for achievements in Energy Management and Conservation 
were given to deserving installations. For the first time an AMC 
installation, Anniston Army Depot, won the US Department of Energy (DOE) 
Energy Conservation Award. Other installations winning HQ AMC Energy 
plaques were Sharpe Army Depot and Iowa and Badger Army Ammunition Plants. 
AMC continued to search for ways to provide cash Incentives to 
installations for quality of life improvements similar to programs in 
F0RSC0M and USAREUR, where proceeds from energy savings were given to the 
installations with the very best programs. AMC had to deal with multiple 
funding appropriations before an equitable and legal cash awards program 
could be implemented. 



64 



(U) Energy Staff Reviews were conducted by AMC Installations and 
Services Activity (I&SA) at 13 installations. The energy program at one 
was judged marginal, four were rated unsatisfactory, and the others were 
viewed as having satisfactory energy programs. 

Environmental Quality Division (U) 

(U) The Environmental Quality Division (EQD) of AMCEN manages the 
Environmental Quality and Pollution Abatement Programs which involve 
Federal, State and local authorities in their interface with AMC mission 
activities. While the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act were the primary 
costly cleanup laws of the I960- 1970s, the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act (RCRA), Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 
(CERCLA) continued to challenge AMC's compliance and cleanup efforts in 
the 1980s. 

Pollution Abatement Operations Center (PAOC) (U) 

(U) Immediately following the Environmental Protection Agency's 
(EPA) letter to the Secretary of the Army in October 1977 identifying air 
and water noncomplying installations, General Guthrie established a 
Pollution Abatement Operations Center (PAOC) operated by EQD. The Center 
maintained an accurate picture of pollution problems at all AMC 
installations and tracked the status of actions and corrective projects 
needed for compliance with environmental laws and regulations. 

Environmental Projects Information System (EPIS) (U) 

(U) The automated Environmental Projects Information System 
accelerated input and output of environmental data such as the annual 
Defense Environmental Status Report and semi-annual Environmental 
Pollution Prevention, Control and Abatement Report to HQDA. This data 
base was maintained by contractor to US Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials 
Agency at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. 



Compliance with Applicable Environmental Quality Standards (U) 

(U) The Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act were the expensive driving 
laws of the 1970s, but the regulations implementing TSCA, RCRA and CERCLA 
(Superfund), which came to the forefront in FY82, had a major impact on 
the AMC environmental picture during FY85. TSCA regulates manufacturing, 
use and importation of chemical substances, including polychlorinated 
biphenyls. AMC installations store and use large quantities of 
polychlorinated biphenyls. RCRA and CERCLA addressed present and past 
management of land disposal of hazardous waste. Under RCRA, AMC was 
spending several millions of dollars annually to obtain RCRA Part B 
hazardous waste permits. Under CERCLA, problems at installations with 
groundwater contamination were quite pervasive. 



65 



(U) At the beginning of FY85, AMC had 29 noncomplying installations 
composed of eight air noncomplying sources, seven water noncompliers, 21 
hazardous wastes noncompliers, and one solid waste noncomplier. At the 
close of FY85, the total number of noncomplying installations decreased to 
23 due to completion of pollution abatement projects and solution of 
procedural violations. 

(U) At the close of FY85, the 23 AMC installations had a total of 
four air noncomplying sources, three water noncompliers, 20 hazardous 
waste noncompliers and two solid waste problem areas. Thus, the net 
compliance posture improved during the fiscal year in the areas of air and 
water pollution and hazardous waste sources, but decreased in the area of 
solid waste noncompliers. 

(U) The most pervasive environmental problem at AMC installations 
was groundwater contamination. At the start of FY82, AMC had only 16 
installations with confirmed groundwater contamination. By the fourth 
quarter of FY83, this had grown to 38 and remained at 38 throughout FY84. 
During 4QFY85, this increased to 40 installations. Newport AAP and 
Sierra AD were added to the list for newly discovered on-post groundwater 
contamination. At the 40 installations with groundwater contamination, 
nine had the contamination migrating off-post and nine additional 
installations had the potential for off-post migration. Monitoring of 
groundwater continued from existing or additional wells to identify the 
type of contaminants and extent of migration. The CERCLA of 1980 requires 
investigation of and response to contamination caused by past and present 
disposal activities. The DOD program in this area was an outgrowth of the 
AMC Installation Restoration Program, and was managed by the US Army Toxic 
and Hazardous Materials Agency (USATHAMA) located at the Edgewood Area of 
Aberdeen Proving Ground. USATHAMA developed protocols for each 
groundwater problem, and provided technical experts to installation 
commanders to help with these groundwater problems. 

(U) Regulatory proceedings and litigation represented a measure of 
legal actions against AMC installations. Regulatory procedings included 
violation notices, cause of adjudicatory hearings, and compliance orders. 
The net number of installations with such legal actions decreased from 23 
to 20 between the end of FY84 and the end of FY85. During this period, 
the number of violation notifications decreased from 20 to 10 and 
compliance orders at these installations increased from seven to 10 at the 
end of FY85. 

(U) The operating permit status (air, water, solid waste, hazardous 
waste, and dredge/fill) for AMC installations remained about constant 
during FY85. The permits increased from 86 percent on-hand at the 
beginning to 90 percent on-hand at the close of the fiscal year. The 
on-hand plus applied-for permits increased slightly from 96 percent at the 
start to 98 percent at the end of FY85. Command emphasis resulted in very 
positive results in the operating permit area. 



66 



Environmental Noise (U) 

(U) Installation Compatible Use Zone (ICUZ) Program . Chapter 7 of 
AR 200-1, 15 June 1982, and AMC Supplement 1 to AR 200-1, 1 February 1983 
give detailed guidance to implement this ICUZ program at AMC installations. 
It also provides the ICUZ program concept, how to prepare the ICUZ 
analysis study, and lists ICUZ responsibilities. The ICUZ program required 
development of noise zone contours at those installations generating sound 
from aircraft operations, weapons firings, munitions detonations, or other 
excessive noise activities. It further required identification and 
analysis of incompatible land uses and, if necessary, development of 
agreements with local communities. 

(U) The purpose of the Army ICUZ program was to safeguard 
installation mission capabilities from off-post encroachment. It was 
patterned after similar US Navy and US Air Force programs. It differed 
from those in that while the USAF and Navy major noise makers were 
aircraft, the Army's major noise sources were impulse noise generated by 
large weapons, rotary-wing aircraft, small-arms firing, and continuous 
noise from vehicles and fixed sources such as generators. 

(U) Chapter 7 of AR 200-1 and AMC guidance set forth DA policy on 
achieving compatible land use of public and private lands in the vicinity 
of Army Installations; defined desirable restrictions on land use to 
assure its compatibility with the noise characteristics of the 
installation; described the procedures by which ICUZ may be defined; and 
provided policy on extent of government interest in real property within 
these zones. 

(U) At the end of FY85, 39 AMC installations were identified as 
needing a minimum of a complete noise contour map and 31 installations 
completed this step. Further, 32 installations generated no significant 
environmental noise. Compliance with the ICUZ requirements would be an 
ongoing requirement for the next several years. During FY84 and 85 AMC 
initiated background studies and held ICUZ training for representatives of 
eleven installations. This training covered ICUZ contours, site specific 
analysis of community noise laws, land-use requirements, and public 
involvement techniques. Thirteen more Installations and their MSCs would 
be scheduled for this ICUZ training in early FY86 and in late FY86 ten more 
installations would receive ICUZ training if money became available to 
fund the program. 

(U) In order to establish the total environmental noise levels from 
armor, artillery, rockets, demolition blasts, rotary wing aircraft, trucks 
and equipment at Army installations, it was necessary to know the basic 
environmental noise signatures/acoustic directivity patterns for equipment 
and weapons systems. Completed acoustic directivity patterns for weapons 
systems were incorporated into a noise contour computer model developed by 
the US Army Construction Engineering Research Lab (CERL) and ICUZ analyses 
were completed at installations Completed acoustic directivity patterns 
for weapons systems were incorporated into a noise contour computer model 
developed by the US Army Construction Engineering Research Lab (CERL) and 
ICUZ analyses were completed at installations where the weapons systems 



67 



were used. In the past, problems were encountered by FORSCOM and TRADOC 
due to absence of required noise signature data for new weapon systems. 
The noise measurements on these weapons systems had been or would be made 
on a reimbursable basis by CERL. Considerable public controversy and 
political and legal problems were also created by lack of the acoustic 
directivity patterns for vehicles or weapons early in the functional life 
cycle model for use in environmental documentation for operational 
testing. Communications with TRADOC and FORSCOM indicated that it was by 
this time critical to obtain environmental noise signature measurements 
for new or modified helicopters. 

(U) AMC Program/Project/Product Managers were directed by AMC Chief 
of Staff letter, 23 October 1984, to ensure that environmental noise 
signature measurements/acoustic directivity patterns were conducted early 
in the demonstration and validation phases for all new or product-improved 
materiel. The basic noise information would then be used in preparation 
of environmental documents by the materiel developers for operational 
testing and by the users for modifying the installation on-going mission 
Environmental Impact Statements and/or conducting or updating ICUZ 
studies. 

Installation Restoration (U) 

(U) In FY85 the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ranked 
Federal facilities to be included on the National Priorities List, and 19 
Army installations, 17 of which were AMC installations, were on this list. 
While presence on the list did not require action to be taken, the 
installations listed were preparing to implement the National Contingency 
Plan with cleanup as the ultimate goal. 

(U) Army environmental funds were used to extend or construct public 
water distribution systems to provide a permanent treated water supply to 
offpost residents whose drinking water wells were contaminated from 
activities on installations. A project totaling nearly $4 million was 
undertaken at Letterkenny Army Depot. At Phoenix Military Reservation, 
Maryland a contract was signed between the Army and Baltimore County to 
build a permanent water supply system in adjacent Baltimore County. At 
two other sites, Sharpe Army Depot and Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant, 
bottled water continued to be provided pending the results of offpost 
groundwater studies. 

(U) In FY85 remedial actions were initiated at Anniston AD (groundwatei 
restoration); Cornhusker AAP (incineration); and Phoenix Military 
Reservation (response actions). Remedial actions were completed at Milan 
AAP (settling pond closure) and Woodbridge Research Facility (PCB and 
transformer removal). 

(U) In conjunction with CERCLA actions, several pilot tests were 
completed in FY85 which would provide new technology useful in the removal 
and disposal of contaminated soils and sludges, and which would reduce the 
cost of aquifer restoration by providing for on-site treatment of 
groundwater. On- and off-post studies continued at Rocky Mountain 
Arsenal. Two program managers were created, one at Rocky Mountain Arsenal 



68 



and the other at Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant. Also, based on the 
request of DA Environmental Office, all the Army sites in the Installation 
Restoration Program at 62 installations were identified. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (U) 

(U) On 8 November 1984, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 

1984 (HWSA) were enacted to expand the scope of RCRA. The major provisions 
of HWSA became the focus of attention in AMC's RCRA program in FY85. 
Among the changes wrought by HWSA, which affected AMC's hazardous waste 
management activities in FY85, were modifications to the existing RCRA 
permit program; more stringent design and performance standards; and new 
regulatory initiatives. 

(U) To assure compliance with a statutory deadline of 8 November 

1985 and continuance of interim status for hazardous waste surface 
impoundments and landfills, efforts were directed toward preparation of 
Part B permit applications and certification of compliance with 
groundwater monitoring requirements. Installations affected were Radford 
AAP, Iowa AAP, Hawthorne AAP, Red River AD, Lake City AAP, Tooele AD, 
Corpus Christi AD, and Stratford AEP. Exposure information data were also 
developed for these land disposal facilities with technical support 
provided by the US Army Environmental Hygiene Agency. 

(U) Identification of existing hazardous waste surface impoundments 
which needed to be upgraded to comply with the minimum requirements of 
double liners, leachate collection system, and groundwater monitoring 
system was undertaken through 2d and 3rd quarters of FY85. After 8 
November 1988, these facilities could not receive, store, or treat 
hazardous waste unless they complied with the minimum requirements. 

(U) In response to new regulatory initiatives, efforts were focused 
on conducting an inventory of underground storage tanks and initiation of 
waste minimization program. The inventory of underground storage tanks 
containing petroleum and chemical product was initiated on 10 July 1985 to 
comply with a statutory deadline of May 1986. AMC expected a major impact 
on existing management of underground storage tanks when the regulations 
were promulgated in 1987. Under initial efforts dealing with waste 
minimization, AMC implemented the Used Solvent Elimination (USE) program 
in January 1985. The objective of the USE was to eliminate disposal of 
waste recyclable solvents by November 1986. 

(U) Out of 47 AMC installations requiring Part B permit applications 
for hazardous waste management facilities for which there were existing 
applicable final standards, 43 had their application prepared as of the end 
of FY85. All would be completed in FY86. As of the end of FY85, there 
were 36 AMC installations (including Crane AAA and Corpus Christi AD) 
which had submitted applications to regulatory agencies. The remaining 
installations were awaiting their formal notice of submission for the 
applications. Six installations had received their Part B permits (for 
existing HWM facilities - Aberdeen PG, Sharpe AD, Sacramento AD and 
Riverbank AAP; for new HWM facilities - Mississippi AAP and Pine Bluff 



69 



Arsenal). During FY85, RCRA Part B permit applications wee also prepared 
for the storage igloos for the M55 rockets located at Lexington-Blue Grass 
AD, Anniston AD, Tooele AD, Umatilla AD, and Pine Bluff Arsenal. 

(U) Closure of certain hazardous waste management units which were 
no longer required were affected in Longhorn AAP (unlined evaporation 
pond) and Sacramento AD (tanks). Closure plans were initiated for Lake 
City AAP, and Tooele AD. Surface clean-up of the New Bomb area at 
Hawthorne AAP for unexploded ordnance, explosives, and fragments was also 
initiated. 

(U) Twenty AMC installations were participants in the groundwater 
monitoring program. Groundwater quality assessment plans were prepared 
for Iowa AAP, Watervliet Arsenal, and Louisnana AAP. Groundwater 
assessments had been underway for Sunflower AAP, Radford AAP, Redstone 
Arsenal, Tooele AD, and Picatinny Arsenal. The final assessment study 
report on the Unlined Evaporation Pond at Longhorn AAP was completed and 
submitted to the State of Texas for approval. Environmental studies which 
were conducted in coordination with the US Environmental Protection Agency, 
on open burning/open detonation operations, continued in FY85. The US 
Army Environmental Hygiene Agency completed its evaluation of soil residue 
and groundwater quality and the US Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials 
Agency completed its study on parameters affecting migration of 
contaminants in soil. Tooele Army Depot was conducting air emissions 
studies to be incorporated into criteria for the preparation of an RCRA 
Permit Writer's Guidance Manual for open burning/open detonations 
facilities. 36 

Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) (U) 

(U) HQ AMC's TSCA program in FY85 focused on compliance with 
regulations on polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB). Testing of electrical 
equipment and industrial plant equipment for PCBs continued in FY85 and 
was accomplished through a central laboratory under contract with the US 
Army Engineer Division, Huntsville, Alabama. Because of the limited 
funded amount of samples to be analyzed, another effort was initiated by 
the US Army Industrial Base Engineering Activity to perform similar 
testing requirements as part of condition assessment of inactive 
industrial plant equipment located at government sites. Also, for active 
industrial plant equipment located at contractor-owned facilities, 
direction was provided to AMCCOM to have them tested as well. 

(U) Actions were also undertaken at Picatinny Arsenal to clean up 
and repair or dispose of all leaking PCB transformers; to initiate and 
maintain inspection and maintenance records for all PCB transformers; to 
inspect all transformers containing unknown dielectric fluid to determine 
their contents and condition; to establish a regular inspection program 
for those transformers containing an unknown fluid; and to ensure that all 
employees required to work with PCBs receive formal training on the 
precautions and hazards associated with handling them. 



36 State of the Union, USAMC, 1985, p. 77. 



70 



(U) CECOM also provided information on the identification and 
environmental control of radio frequency interference filters containing 
PCB. 

(U) On 16 August 1985, the final rule amending portions of an 
existing EPA rule concerning PCB transformers (electrical transformers 
containing 500 parts per million or greater PCBs) became effective. The 
rule prohibits the use of higher secondary voltage (480 volts and above) 
network PCB transformers in or near commercial buildings after 1 October 
1990; requires the installation of enhanced electrical protection on lower 
secondary voltage network PCB transformers and higher secondary voltage 
radial PCB transformers in or near commercial buildings by 1 October 1990; 
prohibits further installation of PCB transformers in or near commercial 
buildings after 1 October 1985; requires the registration of all PCB 
transformers with fire response personnel and building owners by 1 
December 1985; requires the marking of the exterior of all PCB transformer 
locations by 1 December 1985; and requires the removal of stored 
combustibles located near PCB transformers by 1 December 1985. 

Environmental Awards (U) 

(U) Five AMC installations submitted entries for the Annual 
AMC/DA/DOD Environmental Quality Award during FY85: Aberdeen PG, Iowa 
AAP, Pine Bluff Arsenal, Red River AD, and Tooele AD. Pine Bluff Arsenal 
won the AMC Award, and Aberdeen PG and Iowa AAP were runners-up. These 
three installations were nominated for the DA Award but did not place in 
that competition. 

(U) Mr. Donald L. Compbell, Program Manager's Office, Rocky Mountain 
Arsenal Contamination Cleanup, was nominated to HQDA for the Federal 
Environmental Engineer of the Year Award. He did not place in the 
competition. 

Environmental Restoration program (ERP) Funds (U) 

(U) AMC's share of ERP funds was increased to $40,810 million during 
FY85. Of this amount, $40,768 million was obligated, a rate of 99.90 
percent. 

Defense Environmental Status Report (DESR) Report (RCS DD-M(A)-1485) (U) 

(U) This report serves as a basis for DA's annual review to DOD. It 
also serves as an indicator of how well AMC proceeds toward achievement of 
DOD directed environmental objectives. The report, submitted as required 
in November each year, continues to Indicate progress toward achievement 
of compliance objectives. However, new requirements under RCRA and CERCLA 
continue to keep AMC compliance rate at less than 100 percent. 

(U) For FY85, new sections were added by DOD to the DESR on leaking 
underground storage tanks, on management of specialized waste and on 
environmental auditing. At HQ AMC questions were added to give the status 
of the Installation Compatible Use Zone (ICUZ) Program. 



71 



National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (U) 

(U) Policies and procedures for NEPA were generally sound and 
continued to be implemented throughout AMC. Unresolved issues at lower 
echelons were the exception, but were surfaced to AMC as needed. During 
FY85, HQ AMC had considerable involvement with NEPA documentation relating 
to Disposal of Chemical Munitions (Unitary Type), and development and 
production of Binary Chemical munitions. Of special interest was an Army 
proposal to build a biological test laboratory at Dugway Proving Ground. 
This proposal resulted in a highly publicized lawsuit which charged 
inadequate NEPA documentation. A court decision of 31 May 1985, blocked 
construction of the $1.4 million project pending completion of a better 
environmental assessment. An Environmental Impact Statement was not 
required. Nine support facility projects ($7 million) and their NEPA 
documents were accepted and construction for those was allowed. The only 
other significant development had to do with potentially inadequate life 
cycle documents. Requests for testing items and weapon systems being 
developed were often accompanied by inadequate NEPA documents or none at 
all. Command emphasis to prepare life cycle documents was again needed. 
The Commander, AMC, supported the need to direct full support by 
Commanders and all Program/Project/Product Managers in Commander's Guidance 
Statement #91. 

Air Quality (U) 

(U) The Air Quality Program throughout AMC continued to work and was 
largely controlled through the permit process. Three noteworthy items 
highlighted air quality control throughout AMC during FY85. 

(U) Open Burning/Open Detonation . The OB/OD of munitions and 
related materials was an important and necessary element of AMC's mission. 
OB/OD supplements the disposal process of the Explosive Waste Incinerators 
and Contaminated Waste Processors. The discharges and residues associated 
with OB/OD were the subject of considerable study over the preceding year 
mainly due to the requirements of RCRA and the potential for groundwater 
contamination. 

(U) Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant . Significant problems with 
air quality continued to plague the Army's new Mississippi Army Ammunition 
Plant. Efforts to operate the mechanical steam plant and the forge shop 
within allowable emission discharges resulted in two enforcement actions 
and a USAAA Audit (May-Jul 85). Violations resulted in issuance of two 
compliance orders by the Mississippi Commission on Natural Resources, the 
first, 22 May 1985, was issued to CG, AMC to correct air emissions from 
the forge shop by 30 June 1986. In June 1985 the order was sent to CG 
AMCCOM for action. AMCCOM advised that fix was due for completion and 
verification by 1 February 1986. The second order, 23 May 1985, was 
issued to the Chief of Engineers to correct air emissions from the 
mechanical plant (coal-fired boilers) by 1 January 1986. Fix was expected 
to be in place by 1 January 1986. 



72 



(U) Vehicle Emission Control . Inability of White Engines, 
Incorporated, to meet 1985 Federal emission standards for the engine used 
in the 2 1/2-ton truck resulted in White's request to EPA for exemption of 
A, 500 engines. The request was supported by a DOD letter to EPA 16 
January 1985 while asking the Army to consider retrofitting the engines 
when certified fixes became available. The Army's study conducted by 
TACOM resulted in a positive response to EPA. The TACOM letter committed 
to performing the retrofit action at the Depot maintenance level. 
Obtaining exemptions for uncertif iable engines/vehicles from EPA had to be 
based on good faith efforts to meet standards and fully justified 
requests. Reluctance by EPA to grant such exemptions continued to be 
growing. 

Water Quality (U) 

(U) In FY85 the water pollution control community in general 
continued to wait upon the finalization of overdue amendments to the Clean 
Water Act. In the interim, AMC participated in reviews of the status of 
cleanup efforts in support of the DOD-EPA Joint Initiative on the 
Chesapeake Bay. There were also continued efforts to reach agreement on 
certain difficult issues related to National Pollutant Elimination 
Discharge System Permits, particularly at Lake City Army Ammunition Plant 
and at Anniston Army Depot. A change in the Supplement to AR 200—1 was 
also published which required notification of AMC and MSCs in the event of 
certain exceedences in permit limitations. 

Environmental Publications (U) 

(U) The environmental Newsletter, an unofficial publication 
authorized under provisions of AR 360-81 was initiated in FY79. It was 
continuously published each year as items of interest warranted. 
During FY85, the Newsletter was issued for August-December 1984, 
January-February 1985, and March-April 1985. The March-April issue 
included a cover letter by CG, AMC. 

Headquarters Civilian Personnel Office (U) 

(U) In FY85 the Headquarters Civilian Personnel Office (HQ CPO) 
underwent major changes, both organizational and personnel. Emphasis was 
placed on providing quality service to AMC employees and the recruitment 
of new talent to accomplish command initiatives. 

(U) Reorganization . The HQ CPO was reorganized, and thereafter 
reported to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel. With that change 
came several employee changes which included a new Civilian Personnel 
Officer and four new Branch Chiefs. The primary purpose of these changes 
was to bring new ideas and creativity to the headquarters. 

(U) Two major initiatives were identified by the new personnel 
officer which were designed to improve the image of the HQ CPO and 
encourage supervisors to support sound position and performance 
management. The Personnel Officer was successful in accomplishing a 
revitalization of the personnel office. 



73 



(U) Policy and Program Development . The position classification 
management program was strengthened through the new Branch Chief's 
initiatives, and planned organizational reviews. The US Army Equipment 
Authorization Review Activity was reviewed and its personnel were very 
receptive to position management advice and assistance. The Position 
Management and Classification Branch implemented a job accuracy cyclic 
review survey schedule program for the first time and results reflected 
100 percent accuracy. 

(U) The Training and Development Branch conducted 25 UNIX for 
Functional Users classes which resulted in a $148,000 cost avoidance. 
This reflected a great organizational cost benefit from the intense 
training effort. 

(U) The Management Employee Relations Branch was instrumental in the 
development of a tracking system for delinquent performance appraisals. 
The system helped to make supervisors and managers aware of their 
individual responsibility of ensuring that employees are kept aware of 
their level of demonstrated job performance. 

(U) The Suggestion Program achieved significant results during FY85 
and surpassed all of the results of previous fiscal years. From an 
extreme low of 18 suggestions in FY84, the program received 286 submissions 
during FY85. The FY85 goal of $60,127 total savings was far exceeded with 
a total tangible benefit or savings of $423,276. The Incentive Awards 
Program staff, through creative campaigns, helped to make this program 
successful. In addition the Incentive Awards Program Administrator worked 
very closely with CPD counterparts in support of the Commander's Awards 
Day which was a success. 

(U) The HQ CP0 revitalized civilian personnel management through the 
implementation of new systems and programs. Initial emphasis was placed 
on special employment program administration (handicapped individuals, 
disabled veterans, stay-in-school program, veteran's readjustment 
program). A Special Programs Coordinator was appointed for the first time 
in HQ CP0. Six stay-in-school appointments made during FY85 exceeded the 
two appointments made in FY84. Two professors from historically black 
colleges and universities (HBCU) were selected for summer employment 
positions, one as a Logistics Management Specialist, and the other a Personnel 
Management Specialist. These were the first appointments made under the 
HBCU special employment program. 

Adjutant General Division (U) 

(U) FY85 was a year of change and restructuring for the Command 
Adjutant General Division. In October 1984 the Schools Division was 
combined with the Army Continuing Education System Office to form the 
Education Section under supervision of the newly formed Community Life 
Services Branch. However, the greatest change occurred in July 1985 when 
the division lost the Library Program Office and the Administrative 
Systems Branch. Only the Top Secret Repository and the Travel Section 
remained with the AG Division. The division, in effect, lost one entire 



74 



branch with 37 authorized spaces. Operating with the one remaining 
branch, the division was expected to make further internal changes after 
the final decision was made concerning the HQ AMC restructuring. 

(U) The AMC Educational Network began televised logistics education 
in January, and a total of 1,642 students graduated from courses taught 
through the network. These students would not have received the courses 
had only resident instruction been used. 

(U) A HQ AMC Child Care program was implemented and a Family Program 
Specialist was hired to coordinate AMC's family programs. 

Army Continuing Education System (ACES) (U) 

(U) Reorganization . As part of the ODCSPER reorganization, 
October 1984 the Army Continuing Education System (ACES) Office became the 
ACES Section when moved from the Community and Personnel Services Branch 
and combined with the Schools Division to comprise the new Education 
Branch under the newly organized Community Life Services Division, Office 
of the Command Adjutant General. A subsequent reorganization changed the 
ACES Section to the ACES subsection under the Education Section. Also, 
the mission and functions of the ACES subsection were expanded to include 
staff management of Short Course Training for military personnel and 
Foreign Military Training. A Second Education Services Specialist 
position was authorized and filled to assist with staff management of ACES 
and Family Member education programs and services. 

(U) Redirection of ACES . A historic decision was made pertaining 
to the proponency of ACES, with AMC's position that DCSPER retain 
proponency being sustained by HQDA. An MOU between the HQDA, DCSPER and 
DCSOPS transferred the foreign language programs/Army Apprenticeship 
Program and the Advanced Skills Education Program to DCSOPS proponency for 
policy and resourcing; however, these programs would continue to be 
offered through Army Education Centers (ACES). HQDA, DCSPER was given 
single proponency for all Army Learning Centers (ALCs). AMC identified 
the DCSPER as the single proponent for ALCs (ACES)/unit/CPOs within the 
command and ALC resourcing requirements were identified in preparation of 
HQDA's plans to transfer all resourcing into the P879732 (ACES) account 
with the exception of AMC schools and TRADOC service schools. 

(U) ACES Services . Ten AMC Army Education Centers and seven 
subcenters provided ACES support to 64 percent (14,480 of 22,763) of the 
soldiers and other service members (permanent party and trainees) within 
their Service areas. Twenty-seven percent (6,167 of 22,763) were enrolled 
in ACES sponsored courses, some earning the following credentials: 203 
state high school equivalency certificates, 21 vocational certificates, 
111 associate degrees, 88 baccalaureate degrees and 93 masters degrees. 
There were 14,639 course enrollments and 11,697 course completions (80 
percent). ACES counselors provided 36,626 individuals and 534 group 
counseling sessions while 17,150 tests were administered by ACES testing 
sections and 62,588 learning support service visits were supported by ACES 



75 



learning centers/MOS libraries/language labs. The overall average cost 
per enrollment was $140 while the cost per counseling session was $9.83 
and the cost per service visit/test was approximately $10.50. 

(U) ACES Program Development . The US Armed Forces Command 
developed McFann Grey curriculum was adopted as AMC's standardized 
basic skills Education Program (BSEP) curriculum with materials being drop 
shipped to each AMC education center. As one of two Army test sites for 
the Army Extended Degree Program, Fort Monmouth completed the review of 
this effort to identify ways of enhancing educational support to military 
family members. Basic planning was initiated for implementation of the 
new Career Skills Education Program I/II. Within AMC, ACES guided the 
phase out of the Veterans Education Assistance Program (Effective 1 July 
1985) and the implementation of the new (1985) GI Bill. AMC education 
centers continued to support mid-term reenlistment by providing BSEP 
instruction to more than 225 mid-term soldiers. Approximately two-thirds 
of those who post tested (146) achieved qualifying scores for reenlistment 
following BSEP. The overall average score increase on the General 
Technical score was 17.9 points. Within AMC, a total of 1153 soldiers 
were enrolled in The Army Apprenticeship Program (TAAP). AMC lost 11 
percent fewer TAAP participants because of ETS, dropped 6 percent fewer 
participants and achieved a 2 percent higher completion rate than the Army 
average. 

(U) Army Partnership in Education (Adopt-A-School) Program 
Development^ During FY84 AMC led the Army in the continued development 
of Adopt-A-School partnerships with 36 installations supporting 62 
separate schools/school districts. A HQ AMC Adopt-A-School Volunteer 
Coordinator, Mrs. Isabel Crocker, AMCSM-WAA, was appointed to coordinate 
AMC's adoption of the George Washington Junior High School in Alexandria, 
Virginia. Although a final agreement was not consummated, limited support 
for the school was provided in FY85 through coordination of the HQ AMC 
Public Affairs Community Relations Office. 

AMC Education Network (U) 

(U) The US Army Logistics Management Center (ALMC) was tasked in 
FY82 to explore the concept of exporting logistics education across the 
logistics community via televised broadcast. This system or network would 
allow AMC to increase its productivity and better meet its educational 
challenge. 

(U) The network began operation on 7 January 1985 when it broadcast 
the four week Management of Defense Acquisition Contracts Course (Basic). 
The original network consisted of the transmitting station at ALMC, Fort 
Lee, Virginia, and the following ten receive stations: 
Communications-Electronic Command (CECOM), Fort Monmouth, New Jersey; 
Armament, Munition and Chemical Command (AMCCOM), Dover, New Jersey; 
Armament Munition and Chemical Command (AMCCOM), Rock Island, Illinois; 
Test and Evaluation Command (TECOM), Aberdeen, Maryland; Tank-Automotive 
Command (TACOM), Warren, Michigan; Aviation Support Command/Troop Support 
Command (AVSC0M/TR0SC0M), St. Louis, Missouri; Missile Command (MICOM), 
Hunt8ville, Alabama; Depot Systems Command/Letterkenny Army Depot 



76 



(DESCOM/LEAD), Chambersburg, Pennsylvania; and the Belvoir Research and 
Development Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia; and the Defense Construction 
Supply Center, Columbus, Ohio. 

(U) Since the opening of the network, the following additional sites 
had become a part of this educational system: US Army Defense Ammunition 
Center and School, Savanna, Illinois; Anniston Army Depot, Anniston, 
Alabama; Tobyhanna Army Depot, Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania; Sacramento Army 
Depot, Sacramento, California; Corpus Christi, Texas; New Cumberland Army 
Depot, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania; AMC Intern Training Center, 
Texarcana, Texas; Army Materiel and Technology Laboratory, Watertown, 
Massachusetts; Norfolk Naval Supply Center, Norfolk, Virginia; San Diego 
Naval Supply Center, San Diego, California; and the Defense Electronic 
Supply Center, Dayton, Ohio. 

(U) Courses taught and the number of offerings are listed below: 

Course Offerings 

Management of Defense Acquisition Contracts (Basic) 3 

Management of Defense Acquisition Contracts (Advanced) 2 

Army Secondary Item Management 1 

Logistics Support Analysis 2 

Commodity Command Standard Systems (Functional) 3 

Army Provisioning Management 2 

(U) A total of 1,642 students graduated from courses taught through 
the AMC Education Network. Grades for students in the Remote Multi-Media 
Mode (RM3) closely parallel those for students in the same courses taught 
in residence and onsite during FY85. Instruction and exams were identical 
for all modes. 

(U) Statistics indicated that student achievement in RM3 classes was 
essentially equal to that of resident classes and exceeded student 
achievement in onsite classes for the same courses. In addition, RM3 
allowed ALMC to teach 1,642 more students in FY85 than had only resident 
and onsite methods been used. The average cost for a resident student for 
a four week course is approximately $2,000 while the average cost for an 
RM3 student for the same course was approximately $430. This represents a 
cost avoidance of approximately $2.6 million for the 1,642 students. 

Travel Section (U) 

(U) The Travel Section was able to support fully the travel 
requirements of AMC personnel. During FY85, the section processed 9,943 
CONUS TDY requests for travel of HQ AMC personnel. More than 4,755 
requests for travel of from HQ AMC, major subordinate commands, separate 
installations and activities were processed. Permanent change of station 
(PCS) orders were issued to 148 civilian employees. Requirements for 
official local transportation were met by authorizing the use of privately 
owned vehicles when it was deemed more advantageous to the Government. 
Bus tickets and subway passes were furnished to personnel when commercial 



77 



transportation was available for the conduct of official business within 
the local area. 

Top Secret Repository (U) 

(U) The Top Secret Repository continued to improve operations with 
the addition of a permanent clerk typist. In September 1985, the 
repository received an outstanding rating for the second consecutive year 
from the HQ Service Support Activity inspection. 

Alcohol and Drug Abuse (U) 

(U) The AMC Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program 
(ADAPCP) Program set the pace for the rest of the Army in the 
prevention of alcohol abuse in the civilian work force. During FY85 the 
AMC rate of admission to the program was 6.6 per 1,000. Alcohol abuse 
accounted for 88 percent of the admissions. Cannabis and tranquilizers 
were the most common other drug preferences. Factors contributing to the 
continued success of the ADAPCP included: emphasis and direction by the 
Commanding General; stability of ADAPCP staff; increased supervisory 
awareness and confidence in the ADAPCP staff by managers and supervisors; 
and use of the ADAPCP by management as a tool for dealing with performance 
problems. The positive results brought about better program acceptance. 

(U) Prevention and Education . Prevention and education 
were strongly emphasized with supervisory personnel. The AMC goal to train 
80 percent of the supervisors was met. Training does increase supervisory 
acceptance of the program as a management tool. 

(U) Identification and Rehabilitation . The number of civilian 
personnel admitted during FY85 was 743. The admissions for AMC decreased 
from 7 to 6.6 per 1,000, a 3 percent decrease over FY84 but 1.5 percent 
increase over FY83. Another 3,091 employees were screened and assisted by 
the ADAPCP staff or referred to other resources. Military admissions 
(including tenants) was up from 46.6 per 1,000 in FY84 to 47 percent per 
1,000 in FY85. Cannabis accounted for 39.3 percent in FY84. This 
increase could be attributed to the Commanders' use of detection tools 
available for identifying drug abusers. Program flexibility (Track I, II 
and III) permitted more clients to complete the program prior to PCS, ETS 
or retirement. This flexibility allowed for an FY85 cumulative completion 
rate of 70 percent. 

(U) Management . Staff Management Assistance Reviews were 
conducted at 10 installations. The purpose of these reviews was to provide 
the commander on-site recommendations, technical assistance and evaluation 
of the program. These reviews assured that policy and regulations were 
observed and also gave the program increased visibility and emphasis. 

(U) Headquarters Counseling Service . As a result of intensive 
efforts through individual consultation with supervisors and through an 
educational program focused on individual office needs, the number of 
management referrals increased in FY85. The need for privacy for the HQ 



78 



Counseling Services Office led to negotiations with the Occupational 
Health nurse through Walter Reed Army Hospital Center to provide space in 
the Health Clinic. 

Child Development Services (U) 

(U) Fifteen AMC installations operated Child Development Services 
(CDS) programs with full day, hourly, part day school-age and part day 
preschool developmental programs for young children six weeks through 
twelve years of age. 

(U) Family Child Care . FCC, a quarters-based child care system, 
was initiated at Aberdeen, Rock Island, Redstone, White Sands, St. Louis 
Army Support Center, Yuma, and Fort Monmouth. Other installations began 
planning for Family Child Care (FCC) to implement the FY86 HQDA FCC PDIP 
and to provide greater child care services to AMC families. 

(U) Efforts which began during FY83-84 to upgrade CDS facilities 
continued to ensure all health and safety standards were met. Attempts to 
eliminate the need for HQDA waivers and to put AMC on a course toward 
suitable child care facilities resulted in UMMCA projects for New 
Cumberland, Sierra and Seneca. Projects in the MCA program included 
Aberdeen (FY85), Redstone (FY86), Rock Island (FY87), Self ridge (FY87), 
Yuma (FY87), Dugway (FY87), Fort Monmouth (FY88) and St. Louis (FY88). 

(U) Headquarters Child Care Program . In May 1985, AMC hired a 
full-time Child Development Services Program Specialist to develop a 
Headquarters Child Care Program. Information and referral to area child 
care facilities and counseling services were provided, and it was 
anticipated that services during FY86 would be expanded. Action was 
initiated to establish, as an exception to existing DA/DOD policy, an 
employee child care center patterned after centers operated by the 
Department of Labor and US Senate. A work/family seminar series was 
initiated in September, and additional weekly seminars were planned for 
FY86. 

Army Community Service (ACS) Program (U) 

(U) AMC made great strides in program development expansion in the 
ACS arena during FY84. Command support and enthusiasm for ACS Programs 
had steadily increased. During FY85, nineteen ACS centers were 
operations. Thirteen centers had all six essential core programs IAW AR 
608-1, to include a full-time ACS officer and full-time family Advocacy 
Program Coordinator. 

(U) ACS program evaluations were conducted by the HQ AMC ACS staff 
at twelve installations in FY85. All evaluated installations were found 
to be providing the community services at an outstanding level. The 
addition of fenced (PDIP) family programs funds to the AMC ACS budget was 
instrumental in the development and implementation of several effective 
family programs with emphasis on outreach, community awareness, 
prevention, and treatment for dysfunctional families. 



79 



(U) A total of 160,100 customers throughout AMC in 1985 received AMC 
ACS services such as information, referral and follow-up, relocation 
services, exceptional family member program services, spouse and child 
abuse services, foster care services, and consumer affairs and financial 
counseling services. Consequently, the AMC ACS program made a tremendous 
effort to meet the needs of the Army family in the AMC command. 

Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWR) Section (U) 

(U) During FY85, the AMC MWR effort was significantly influenced by 
two major issues. The first involved the House Armed Services Committee 
(HASC) action to reduce appropriated funds by $2.0 million to clubs 
located on installations with small military populations. The Morale, 
Welfare and Recreation Review Committee (MWRRC) agreed to supplement 
affected AMC clubs with offset nonappropriated funds to ensure operations 
would not be adversely interrupted. AMC also provided the HASC with a 
detailed report which explained the myriad of command actions to reduce 
appropriated fund support, improve programs and operational efficiencies 
since 1982. 

(U) HQ AMC and installation commanders monitored club operations to 
ensure appropriate management. 

(U) Another long-term MWR issue was the establishment of brand name 
fast food (Burger King) facilities at AMC installations. Aberdeen Proving 
Ground, Redstone Arsenal and Seneca Army Depot were scheduled to receive 
Burger King facilities in FY86. The brand name fast food program was 
centrally administered by the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) 
and net income was equally divided between AAFES and the installation. The 
installation share of the earnings would be used to support local military 
and civilian morale, welfare and recreation programs. 

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (U) 

Provost Marshal Office (U) 

(U) During FY85 the receipt of increased resources was the most 
prominent event. Approximately $4.3 million reprogrammed money, along 
with an additional $4.9 million of CG AMC money was diverted for security 
upgrades. All money was distributed to the MSCs. 

(U) Ninety-five civilian positions were distributed among AMC 
activities in support of CG, AMC's increased concern for security and 
counterterrorism. The Security Support Activity (SSA) decreased its 
strength by nine, with four coming to the provost marshal and the 
remainder going to the newly established DCS for Intelligence. Action was 
initiated to eliminate SSA as a Separate Reporting Activity (SRA) and to 
place the remaining positions on the HQ AMC TDA under the provost marshal. 



80 



(U) There were two significant changes that occurred in FY85. COL 
David Garner replaced COL Carl Humphreys as the Provost Marshal on 12 
November 1984 and MAJ Jimmie Burns replaced LTC Ron Perry on 12 August 
1985. Also, two GS-12 ACTOs were audited and upgraded to grade GS-13. An 
overhire (terrorism) position was similarly audited and upgraded. 

Civilian Personnel Division (U) 

SES Prioritization and Performance (U) 

(U) In spite of its commitment to prudent performance management, 
AMC FY83 average for exceptional SES ratings was 61 percent, 26 percent 
above the government-wide average. Through utilization of the SES Per- 
formance Review Board (PRB) to control rating inflation, the 1984 average 
exceptional ratings were reduced to 53 percent, which was below the HQ DA 
average of 58 percent. The FY85 PRB reviewed 131 appraisals and recom- 
mended 23 percent exceptional, 53 percent highly successful and .07 per- 
cent minimally satisfactory ratings for approval. 

(U) During FY85 the SES program was required to reduce the number of 
SES requirements and fill those with higher priority. To accomplish this 
task, the AMC prioritization list was scrubbed as part of the February 
1985 biennial review. The CG supported the reduction effort in the 
headquarters by stating his position of austerity at the August 
Commanders' Conference. AMC SES requirements were reduced from 174 to 
163. 38 

Interns (U) 

(U) In FY84 DA allocated AMC an increase of 268 (16 percent) intern 
spaces. This increase was complicated by DA's earlier decision to reduce 
the period of centralized funding from three years to two years, causing 
early placements on local roles and increasing the already large number of 
intern vacancies. By holding early meetings with DA, developing a con- 
vincing argument for increased funding, and preparing a viable recruitment 
plan, 1,232 interns were recruited during FY84. Due to the success with 
intern recruitment in FY84 and continued interface with DA during FY85, 
resource allocations for the intern program were improved during FY85. 

(U) The initial FY85 resource allocation for AMC was 1,917 intern 
spaces and an Annual Funding Program (AFP) of $43,732,000. y Subsequent 
adjustments resulted in an end-year authorization of 1,912 spaces and 
$45,482,000 AFP. AMC completed the FY with a 100 percent obligation of 
funds. 

(U) Despite the pressure to obtain authority to automatically 
convert Schedule B intern appointees to competitive service, 0PM continued 
to control all conversions. AMC did succeed, however, in obtaining 



37 
38 



DCS for Personnel AHR submission, FY85. 
HQ AMC SES positions, FY85. 
39 Ltr, HQDA, PECC-CMS, 6 Nov 84, subj: CTED Student Detachment FY85 
Resources Allocation. 



81 



recognition from OPM for timely efficient conversions and received some 
assurance that all Schedule B appointees would be within reach for 
competitive appointments. 

(U) Under Schedule B appointing authority, 1,353 highly qualified 
individuals (76 percent of the DA Schedule B population) were accepted 
into AMC Career Intern Programs by 30 September 1985. Nine-hundred-fifty- 
seven interns were assigned to the DA Civilian Training, Education and 
Development Detachment (CTED) Student and 396 were local interns. 
Fifty-nine AMC interns were converted to career conditional status. 
Contrary to predictions, ° CPO reported that OPM Area and Regional Offices 
were cooperative and responsive to AMC conversion requests. Although 
procedures to convert these interns to competitive status remained 
cumbersome, carefully crafted crediting plans and narrow selective 
placement factors had resulted in AMC interns being within reach on 
Certificates of Eligibles. 

Automation (U) 

(U) During FY85 HQ AMC was intensely involved in the analysis and 
evaluation of civilian personnel management information systems for 
AMC-wide adaptation. GEN Thompson negotiated with HQDA to install a 
modified version of the USAF Personnel Data System-Civilian as an interim 
standard personnel system for AMC until a new DA system was ready. The 
decision rested with the Under Secretary of the Army. 

(U) In 1980 the Army Civilian Personnel System (ACPERS) Development 
Project Office was established to assess the civilian personnel 
information needs of the Army community and to make recommendations on a 
new system that would provide the widest support for both mobilization 
and peacetime requirements. Several system development options were 
investigated and a recommendation was made by the HQDA DCSPER to adopt the 
Air Force Personnel System as the basis for ACPERS. The HQDA Assistant 
Chief of Staff for Information Management (ACSIM) nonconcurred with this 
recommendation, citing incompatibilities with the Army architecture. A 
number of meetings between the staffs of the DA DCAPER and ACSIM were held 
on this subject, but no agreement was reached. Because of the lack of 
positive action at the departmental level, the Commanding General, AMC, in 
a letter to the Director of the Army Staff addressed the inadequacy of 
the systems to efficiently manage the work force. He emphasized that a 
great deal of time had already been lost pending the development of an 
Army-wide system and preferred to use an Army-wide standard personnel 
management Information system. If a DA system required two to three years 
to develop and implement, AMC resources would be used to immediately 
entertain alternative solutions. On 11 October 1984, General Thompson 
tasked both DCSPER and DCSIM to jointly develop a standardized personnel 
management information system for AMC within the following two years. 



40 
41 



Point Paper, HQ AMC, AMCPE-CE-S, 19 Feb 85, subj: Schedule B 

Conversion. 

Ltr, CG AMC to Dir of the Army Staff, 4 Sep 84. 



82 



The idea of using existing systems such as the Air Force or Military 
District of Washington system existing was fully explored. 

(U) The Army Chief of Staff for Information Management did 
not concur with the AMC Mission Element Need Statement (MENS) which stated 
that the MENS duplicated an existing ACPERS MENS approved in September 
1980 which would replace all automated civilian personnel systems in the 
Army. The resources that AMC would have used to support Army Materiel 
Command Civilian Personnel System (AMCCPS) would be used to augment the 
Information Systems Command effort to develop ACPERS. 2 The Acting 
Assistant Secretary of the Army indicated a desire to accommodate AMC's 
request for an interim system which was not cost prohibitive. As a 
result, an economic analysis, implementation time line and cost figures 
for AMC's interim system were provided on 11 June and 23 August 1985. 

(U) During October-November 1985, several meetings were held by the 
Under Secretary of the Army with the ACSIM, ISEC, DCSPER and CIVPERCENS 
Staffs. AMC DCSPER was included in an effort to resolve issues raised by 
AMC to ensure the final solution was economically sound. However, the AMC 
position, immediate need to develop and Implement an interim personnel 
management information system, remained firm. 

Program Planning, Development and Evaluation (U) 

(U) The Civilian Personnel Division took definitive steps to 
increase the emphasis placed on evaluating civilian personnel management 
functions at all levels. An AMC-wide personnel program planning document 
was developed during FY85 as a result of a first-time ever planning 
meeting with the major subordinate command (MSC) civilian personnel 
managers. The plan not only supported DA priority objectives and outlined 
broad mission related goals and objectives, but advised subordinate CPOs 
to develop local plans to support HQDA, AMC and MSC objectives and 
requirements. The division was innovative in assuring that program 
planning and evaluation would be a continuing process at every level by 
encouraging each subordinate staff and operating CPO to designate a point 
of contact for all matters concerning civilian personnel management, 
program planning, and evaluation. This innovation was carried even 
further through the division's firm support of the Civilian Personnel 
Executive Round Table which took place in June 1985 for all AMC 
personnelists who were program planning and evaluation contacts. During 
this workshop, evaluators shared their experiences in local planning and 
evaluation and learned new techniques and skills to make them more 
effective in the evaluative process. 

(U) During FY85, AMC Civilian Personnel conducted three onsite 
reviews of MSC HQ: TECOM, DESCOM, and AMCCOM. All were found to be 
providing good leadership support to their subordinate activities. The 



42 
43 



Ltr, HQDA, DAPE-PSS, 19 Mar 85, subj: Mission Element Need Statement 
for the Development of the AMCCPS. 

Ltr, HQ AMC, AMCPE-CA, 19 Oct 84, subj: AMC Civilian Personnel 
Management Program Objectives and Goals, FY85. 



83 



FY86-87 Schedule of Personnel Management Surveys by DA, MSCs and the 
division was developed and appropriate coordination was made to avoid 
unnecessary duplication of effort. 

(U) The Manpower Staffing Standards System was established by DA to 
satisfy demands for a requirements determination system which used 
workload measurements as the basis for identifying and justifying manpower 
requirements. Manpower requirements based on manpower staffing standards 
were viewed by congressional armed services and appropriations committees 
as having greater credibility than those not supported by manpower 
staffing standards. As a result of the credence given by Congress and 
hence DA to the Manpower Staffing Standards System and the cooperation 
provided by AMC civilian personnel managers to provide accurate work count 
information, 32 additional CPO spaces were identified in the FY87 Program 
Budget Guidance (PBG). Distribution of these spaces was made to the MSCs 
with recommendations for apportionment to subordinate installations. 

(U) In FY83, this headquarters announced Operation PRO ACT, a study 
to examine approaches to achieving efficiencies and economies through such 
means as sharing personnel /manpower sources and combining functions and 
subf unctions. In FY84-85, the civilian personnel portion of the PRO ACT 
study team considered recommendations for consolidations of civilian 
personnel offices and cooperative efforts in recruitment and training 
among selected CPOs in AMC. As a result, three major initiatives were 
recommended or implemented. 

(U) HQ AMC directed consolidation of Sacramento Army Depot (SAAD) 
and Sharp Army Depot (SHAD) CPOs by 1 October 1985 and directed 
re-examination of the feasibility of including SIAD CPO in that 
consolidation not later than 1 October 1986. As an alternative, DESCOM 
proposed a one phase consolidation of SIAD, SAAD and SHAD with an 
effective date of 1 January 1986 rather than a two phase consolidation. 

(U) HQ AMC requested that the Department of Health and Human 
Services (HHS) staff explore the possibility of providing civilian 
personnel administration services to the Army Research Office (ARO). 
Subsequently, the decision was made to pursue alternative servicing 
possibilities rather than with HHS. Since ARO had become a LABCOM 
subordinate organization, LABCOM proposed that more efficient servicing 
could be provided within LABCOM channels. 

(U) HQ AMC directed implementation of cooperative efforts in 
recruitment and training for six CPO groups in AMC. " 



A4 Ltr, HQ AMC, AMCPE-CA, 19 Aug 85, subj: AMC Civilian Personnel 

Management Program Reviews and Surveys, FY86-87. 
45 DF, AMCPE-CA to AMCRM-MFR-S, 13 Nov 85, subj: Distribution of 32 

Spaces: DA CPO Proposed Increase in the FY87 PBG. 
* 6 Ltr, CG AMC to Cdr AMCCOM, 23 Apr 85, subj: Operations PRO ACT (Civ. 

Personnel Portion) - Cooperative Efforts in Recruitment and Training. 



84 



Position Management (U) 

(U) A congressionally imposed DOD ceiling on the number of positions 
at the GS-13 level or higher was in effect until 1982. In 1984 HQDA 
eliminated its high grade ceiling. However, to preclude the possibility 
of potential progressive high grade increases, AMC issued guidance to the 
MSCs that positions in grades GS/GM 11/15 would be intensely managed and 
that subordinate commands would be required to provide an audit trail and 
justification for essential increases. 

(U) Management efforts included audits of GS/GM 11-15 positions at 
24 locations during January-August 1984. Four-hundred-twenty-three 
employees/positions were randomly selected for audit of grade and job 
description accuracy. Four-hundred-three positions were found to be 
graded correctly, 20 incorrectly. The audits determined that the AMC 
grade accuracy rate was 95.3 percent. The DA level of minimum 
acceptability which was 95 percent indicated that AMC activities generally 
grade GS/GM 11-15 jobs properly.* 8 

(U) Though the grade average of GS/GM 11-15 positions did not 
increase, the number of positions increased in FY85 by 4.3 percent over 
FY84. By comparison, the GS 1-10 growth increased only 1.1 percent. 
General Thompson was not pleased with continual growth of GS/GM 11-15 and 
was very concerned that ceilings may again be imposed or a specific 
reduction target might be given. APORS, CAs, ERs, SMAs and position 
management recommendations did not seem to be doing the job. 

Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action (U) 

(U) The division's support of affirmative action and equal opportu- 
nity had a significant influence on program areas throughout AMC. Of the 
828 interns recruited in FY85, 337 (41 percent) were women and 246 (30 
percent) minorities which exceeds all equal employment opportunity af- 
firmative action goals. 

(U) To improve minority recruitment of Hispanics and reduce travel 
costs, the AMC Field Placement Office (FPO), Midwest Region, Davenport, 
Iowa was closed effective 16 August 1985 and was relocated in Sacramento, 
California in the Western Region FPO. While the recruitment of a new 
staff was in progress, the workload was shifted temporarily to the 
Southern FPO at Marietta, Georgia. 

(U) As a result of improved outreach in SES recruitment, virtually 
every SES referral list contained at least one well qualified minority or 
female candidate. 

(U) The CPA/EEO Exchange Program was developed at HQ AMC to expand 
and enrich functional and managerial skills of CPA and EEO careerists 
through cross functional assignments. At the EE0/CP0 conference in 



47 
48 



CGS No. 65, HQ AMC, AMCPE, 4 Feb 85, subj: Position Management. 
Information Paper, AMCPE-CP, 13 Nov 85, subj: Improved Position 
Management of GS/GM 11-15 Positions. 



85 



January /February 1985, cross development of EEO/CPO specialists using 
tailored training plans emerged as an action item. On 14 May, the Chief 
of Staff issued a letter and milestones for implementation to the MSCs. 9 
In July, when the ADCSPER requested MSCs to report on program 
implementation, seven careerists were participating in cross training, 
interchange of responsibilities or assigned to formal details to obtain 
cross functional experience. 

Performance Management (U) 

(U) AMC encouraged its supervisors to abandon the "business as 
usual" attitude and strongly urged them to do the best job possible in 
appraising their subordinates. Emphasis on performance evaluation 
requiring personal involvement of the Commander resulted in the issuance 
of a command-wide CG Guidance Statement to establish a system of accurate 
and timely performance appraisals. 

(U) In addition the division took on the ambitious project to assure 
that each AMC activity had two trainers within its organization who could 
train local supervisors on how to improve performance standards. The 
division contracted with the OPM, Performance Management Training Center, 
to develop and present train -the -trainer workshops on developing 
individual performance plans. The six (4 1/2 day) workshops trained 
approximately 40 two-person teams from field activities who were charged 
with the responsibility to train supervisors locally on the improved 
methods for developing performance standards. 

(U) In implementing the new merit pay program, Performance 
Management and Recognition System (PMRS), the division was sensitive to 
AMC's obligations to its supervisors and managers. Merit increases and 
comparability increases were effected on target. Due to divisions' concern 
about the awards component of the program and to its desire to assure that 
AMC was on the right track in implementing the new system, a PMRS Advisory 
Group was established to represent each MSC in policy making decisions. 



52' 



(U) The division's influential leadership in monitoring the 
development of AMC policy concerning performance awards to GM employees 
led DA to adopt the AMC position that all MACOMs who maintained award 
levels below 1.5 percent of the GM payroll would be allowed to use the 
maximum amount of 1.5 percent. 



49 Ltr, AMC CofS, 14 May 85, subj: USAMC EEO/EO-Civilian Personnel 
Office Conference, Atlanta, GA, 28 Jan-1 Feb 85 - Human Resources — The 
Key to Leadership. 

50 CGS No. 67, HQ AMC, AMCPE-CE-L, 20Feb 85, subj: Timeliness of 
Performance Appraisals. 

51 Daily Information Summarym HQ AMC, AMCPE-CE-L, 18 Jun 85, subj: GPAS 
Appraisals. 

52 Msg, HQ AMC, AMCPE-CE-L, 24 Jan 85, subj: PMRS. 

5 Report, DCS for Personnel, 3 Apr 85, subj: Payout of Performance 
Awards. 



86 



35% 


55% 


35% 


54% 


32% 


56% 


44% 


45% 


31% 


54% 



(U) In FY85 at most AMC commands, the GM rating profiles improved. 
Significant improvement was made by DESCOM. Their eatings of exceptional 
were down from 20 percent in FY84 to 12 percent in FY85. HQ AMC also made 
significant improvement from 27 percent exceptional in FY84 to 11 percent 
in FY85. The following profiles show the performance of HQ AMC and the 
top three MSCs as compared with the overall AMC profile. 



Exceptional Highly Fully 



TROSCOM 9% 

HQ AMC 11% 

AVSCOM 12% 

DESCOM 12% 

Overall 14% 



Career Management and Training (U) 

(U) During FY85, the Civilian Personnel Division was responsible for 
numerous innovative developments in career management and training which 
broadened managerial experience and provided systematic executive 
development. The SES Development and Utilization Subcommittee was 
established to address the issue of SES executive development. The 
subcommittee was successful in obtaining OSD training quotas which were 
expected to provide a supplementary source to support short term projects 
and relieve members of collateral responsibilities. The Logistics and 
Acquisition Management Program (LOGAMP) was expanded to six disciplines in 
response to the CG's initiatives to enhance functional/managerial 
development of senior civilians (GS/GM 15-SES) and encourage an across 
function exchange of information and ideas, the division established the 
AMC Exchange Program (AMCEP) in March 1985. The AMC Announcement 
Distribution System (AMCADS) was expanded to include nine career programs. 
AMCADS augmented local CPO recruitment efforts to fill Army-wide EEO, SES, 
Engineers and Scientists, Non Construction (NC), and Alcohol and Drug 
Abuse vacancies. During the rating period, six training programs/courses 
were developed and promoted to augment the technical and presentations 
skills of AMC careerists. They included the Advanced Studies Program for 
Interns, Action Officer Orientation Course, Comptroller and ORSA 
Fellowship programs, ORSA E&S Training and Development Program, and the 
Test and Evaluation Engineer Training and Development Program. 

AMC Exchange Program (AMCEP) (U) 

(U) The AMC Exchange Program was approved by the CG and implemented 
March 1985 as a pilot in HQ AMC. The program was designed to facilitate 
the development of senior civilians, GS/GM-15 and members of the SES 
through short-term cross-functional/interfunctional assignments. Program 



54 

Managing the PMRS Rating Profile. 



87 



guidance to include Commander's Guidance Statement #76 was provided to 
all major subordinate commands and Project Management Offices. The pilot 
course was implemented with HQ AMC in March 1985 with the activation of 
five cross-functional assignments. Evaluation of these assignments was 
positive and the program was approved for expansion throughout AMC in 
August 1985. 56 

Logistics and Acquisition Management Program (LOGAMP) (U) 

(U) The LOGAMP was established November 1983 as a DA wide program 
jointly sponsored by the HQDA DCSLOG, HQDA DCSPER and CG AMC, to satisfy 
the Army's need for structured training and career development for 
civilians in the logistics and acquisition management process. 
Competitively selected high-potential logistics and acquisition employees, 
GM/GS 13—15 participated in multi— disciplinary development assignments 
designed to provide necessary background for senior executive service 
positions. Career programs included in LOGAMP were expanded in FY85 to 
six disciplines: Supply, Procurement, Quality and Reliability Assurance, 
Materiel Maintenance Management, Engineers and Scientists (NC) only, and 
Transportation. 

(U) It was composed of three parts: Enhancement of Career Special- 
ties; Competitive Development; and Staffing Key LOGAMP Positions. The 
competitive Development Phase was announced DA-wide in March and August 
1984. All MACOMs were requested to submit individual nominations which 
resulted in 188 Army civilian employees, representing CONUS and OCONUS, 
being competitively selected for participation in the program. In FY85, 
56 participants were placed in developmental assignments which crossed 
command and functional lines and 92 participants received formal training. 
The Staffing Key positions phase was under development in FY85. In June, 
a DA-wide data call of key designated LOGAMP positions was announced with 
the intent to identify, validate, and staff Key Logistics and Acquisition 
Management Positions. 

Army Materiel Command Announcement Distribution System (AMCADS) (U) 

(U) With the exception of AMC EEO and DA SES positions, AMCADS was a 
voluntary automated vacancy announcement distribution system. The system 
was developed by HQ AMC in FY82 as a result of the disestablishment of 
Army's centralized referral system for Engineers and Scientists (NC) and 
was supported by the AMC Logistics Systems Support Agency at Tobyhanna, 
Pennsylvania. It included Civilian Personnel, Comptroller, Supply, 
materiel Maintenance, Automatic Data Processing, Transportation, Training, 



55 
56 
57 
58 



CGS No. 76, HQ AMC, AMCPE-CC, 29 Mar 85, subj: AMC Exchange Program. 
Ltr, HQ AMC, AMCPE-CC-C, 28 Aug 85, subj: AMCEP. 
Ltr, HQ AMC, AMCPE-CC-C, 21 Jun 85, subj: LOGAMP. 
Msg, HQ AMC, AMCPE-CC-C, 21 Jun 85, subj: LOGAMP. 



88 



Education Services, Equal Opportunity, and Engineers and Scientists (NC). 
In FY85, AMCADS was expanded to include Alcohol and Drug Abuse, and SES 
registrants. 

Training and Development (U) 

(U) Manufacturing Training with Industry (TWI) . The TWI program 
was one of several initiatives implemented in FY85 and designed to enhance 
the capabilities of AMC engineers. The 12-month TWI program provided four 
selected production engineers the opportunity to acquire direct 
manufacturing experience by working with private sector host firms in 
FY85. Two assignments were approved for FY86. 

(U) Advanced Manufacturing Engineering Studies . Another 
production engineering initiative introduced in FY85 was the Advanced 
Manufacturing Engineering Studies which offered engineers the opportunity 
to undertake a 12-month full time graduate level program concentrating on 
manufacturing/production engineering at participating universities such as 
University of Michigan, University of Massachusetts, Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology, Boston University and Lehigh University. 

(U) Operations Research Systems Analysis (ORSA) Fellowship 
Program . The ORSA Fellowship Program which was implemented in FY85, 
provided ORSA careerists insight into techniques and methodologies of ORSA 
used within AMC and HQDA. Two fellows participated in FY85. In FY86 the 
program would be HQDA resourced for four fellows. 

(U) Brookings - Quality and Productivity in American Industry . At 
the request of the DCS for Product Assurance and Testing, arrangements 
were made with the Brookings Institution to conduct a 40-hour course in 
quality assurance and control procedures, design and engineering aspects 
of quality assurance, manufacturing designs, and other manufacturing 
complexities. In FY84, 54 civilians and 10 military attended the first 
course and 63 civilians and 20 military attended in FY85. In FY86, the 
program would be announced DOD-wide with 25 spaces reserved for AMC 
participation to include 20 civilians and three military each session. ° 

(U) Action Officer Orientation . To acquaint new AMC action 
officers with missions and organization of AMC and to introduce principles 
of effective staff writing and briefing, the CG tasked Civilian Personnel 
Division to develop and conduct an orientation course to be given all new 
AMC action officers. The four courses conducted in FY85 trained 191 
action officers. 



59 



60 



Ltr, Ch, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Ofc, Ofc of Deputy CofS for Personnel, 
AMCPE-H, to Dir, USA Drug & Alcohol Tech Acty, 14 Aug 84, subj: 
ADAPCP . 

Ltr, Asst Deputy CofS for Personnel, AMCPE-CC-T, 13 Sep 85, subj: The 
Brookings Institution - Special Seminar on Quality and Productivity in 
American Industry. 



89 



(U) Personalized teaming and Training Opportunities (PLATO) 
Computer-Based Instruction (CBI) . DOD issued policy to accelerate use of 
CBI in training arenas. OSD provided management and funding support to 
develop a government owned and operated CBI network for various Federal 
agencies on a cooperative basis. By Memo of Agreement signed by AMC Chief 
of Staff, 26 June 1984, AMC entered into tri-Service agreement of sharing 
on-line course ware offerings. AMC installations Included in CBI network 
totalled 170 PLATO terminals with both on-line and off-line capabilities at 
41 locations. PLATO was originally developed by the University of 
Illinois for the Department of Army Research Products Agency. When its 10- 
year contract ended, proprietary rights and existing software were 
purchased by Control Data Corporation (CDC) which maintained a library of 
over 13,000 courses. The on-line library and the capability to develop 
course ware generic to individual mission needs would be available to AMC 
subscribers. As costs of equipment and installation were to be borne by 
OSD Productivity Improvement Funds, end user costs were not expected to 
exceed $500 monthly which would be less than the cost of a one-week course 
for one person at 0PM. 

Staffing (U) 

(U) Concerning the status of collateral personnel involved with the 
security function, updating the occupational standards for security guards 
and police was an important concern during FY85. Threats of sabotage and 
terrorism made it essential to have a well qualified, adequately paid, 
physically fit, drug free guard force. 

(U) Hiring and maintaining a force to meet these standards was not 
possible without obsolete classification, qualification, and physical 
standards being updated. To accomplish this, AMC had been attempting for 
some time, with DA and DOD assistance, to convince 0PM to reactivate 
studies of guard and police standards which were begun in 1980 and 1983. 
After October 1985, no action was taken by 0PM. AMC did monitoring and 
shared efforts made by other agencies to upgrade guard and police physical 
and performance standards. 

Employee Management (U) 

(U) The command-wide sick leave rate for FY854 was 58.98 hours per 
employee. Although AMC exceeded its goal of 58 hours of maximum sick 
leave usage in FY85, the command did achieve a substantial reduction of 
2.02 hours from FY84. Noteworthy were the accomplishments of TROSCOM 62 and 
TEC0M who reduced their sick leave by 13.2 hours and 14.9 hours 
respectively. The challenge for FY86 was expected to be more difficult in 
the effort to meet ongoing DA goals to reduce by 5 percent each year until 
reaching an average of 48 hours sick leave per employee each year. The 
AMC goal for FY86 would be 56 hours. 



61 DISUM, HQ AMC, AMCPE-CE-L, 15 Feb 85, subj: Supervisor's Guide to 
Management of Sick Leave; AMC-P 5-2. 
Ltr, GEN Thompson to GEN Wickham, 31 Oct 85, subj: TROSCOM sick leave, 

90 



(U) In order to enhance both the awards and suggestion programs, HQ 
AMC conducted the AMC Commander's First Annual Recognition Day Awards 
Ceremony on 23 May 1985. The CG presented 30 awards and citations to 
military and civilian employees who made outstanding contributions to 
mission accomplishments. MSCs and Separate Reporting Activities who made 
significant strides in the suggestion program during FY85 were recognized. 
Awards were also presented to outstanding AMC activities, the AMC family 
of the year, and two members of the US Army Band. 

Command Office of Equal Opportunity (U) 

(U) Command-wide, the Office of Equal Opportunity continued during 
FY85 to manage and direct the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and Equal 
Opportunity (EO) Programs to provide a work environment free of 
discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age 
or physical/mental handicap. 

Workshops and EEO Training (U) 

(U) The Equal Opportunity Executive Seminar for AMC headquarters was 
conducted on 7 December 1984. A total of thirty General Officers, SES 
members, and Deputy Chiefs of Staff and separate office chiefs actively 
participated in this session. In addition to presentations from members 
of the EEO, CPO and legal offices, the executives met in separate 
workshops to plan an effective approach for the headquarters' supervisory 
E0/EE0 training program. The Chief of Staff highlighted the seminar by 
delivering the Commanding General's expectations for the management 
environment he wanted to create: to continue to make progress; to find 
innovative solutions; to be accountable and require that subordinates be 
accountable for their performance in this area; to communicate commitment 
up and down the chain; to treat people problems as matters of top 
priority; to commit the time and effort necessary to get the job done; to 
get to the bottom of EEO and Personnel Management problems; to get 
DCSs/SOCs personally involved in selections at grade 13 and above. 

(U) AMC held a highly successful Equal Employment Opportunity /Equal 
Opportunity - Civilian Personnel Officer Conference in Atlanta, Georgia 
from 28 January to 1 February 1985. The theme for the conference was 
"Human Resources - The Key to Leadership". The conference objectives were 
to review and evaluate the impact of actions programmed from the 1984 
conference; to exchange ideas and successes for betterment of people 
programs in AMC; to evaluate and program AMC directions for progress; and 
to plan future actions around evolving changes in the personnel/equal 
opportunity climate of the Army and the Federal sector. General Thompson 
was the guest speaker at the conference banquet, and his verbatim remarks, 
containing his people policies and guidelines, were distributed 
command-wide under a cover letter from the AMC Chief of Staff on 26 
February 1985. 

(U) A "Women in Search of Excellence" Seminar was held 14-16 May 
1985 at the Hyatt Hotel, Arlington, Virginia. Word -of -mouth endorsements, 
a story in the "Interchange" and timely requests for applications resulted 



91 



in an overwhelming response from women GS/M-12 and above. The Chief of 
Staff visited students to underline support and communicate leadership 
ideals. 

(U) As a result of the briefing on the concept and initial design of 
an AMC EEO Information System held on 8 July 1985, the Functional 
Coordinating Group for EEO Management Information Systems was established 
with Mr. Julius Crouch (ALMSA) as the Chair. The system concept consisted 
of four modules: affirmative actions, case tracking (complaints 
processing), equal opportunity (military), and workplace automation tools. 
The system was being designed around the Intel 310 Microcomputer. The 
Director of ALMSA was supporting its development and was furnishing 
support from his own resources. DA and MACOMs asked to be kept informed. 
The time schedule called for the system to be in place by 30 September 
1986. 

(U) The FY85 AMC Complaints Processing Training Workshop was held in 
Memphis, Tennessee on 11-12 September 1985. The 27 participants from 26 
installations were selected from 50 nominations. Comments from critiques 
indicated that this was an excellent workshop providing comprehensive 
information, resource materials, and group participation. This was the 
fourth in a series of workshops to provide training to correct 
deficiencies in complaints processing and to promote compliance and proper 
application of regulatory and policy guidance. A high rate of improvement 
was noted following each of these workshops. 

(U) The AMC Director of E0/EE0 identified the need for an AMC 
Legal-EEO Workshop to provide special training to insure the legal 
sufficiency of commanders' decisions on complaints of discrimination. 
This issue was discussed in a special working session of the AMC 
EE0/E0-CP0 conference in January 1985. The participants In that session 
stated that such a session was needed, and did some initial definition of 
cases to be covered. Based on this, representatives of the Personnel 
Office and the Command Counsel designed a program of instruction and 
prepared a recommendation for the Chief of Staff. The Chief of Staff 
approved the concept and two sessions were planned—one to be held in St. 
Louis, Missouri in September 1985 and a second in San Francisco, 
California in December 1985. The workshops were well attended and well 
received. 

(U) Affirmative Action Planning . The AMC Multi-Year Affirmative 
Action Program Plan for FY82-86 received continued command emphasis and 
support. This was the first plan that attempted to set goals for more 
than 1 year at a time. 

(U) Complaints Processing . A total of 243 formal complaints were 
filed throughout the command during FY85; 47 were closed with one finding 
of discrimination. (See chart next page). 

(U) Statistical Data . The total work force decreased in FY85. 
There was a decrease in the lower and middle grades of 2,202 and 251 
respectively. The higher grades had an increase of 499 while the 
Executive Service remained constant. In spite of this decrease In the 



92 



EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMPLAINTS 
1 October 1984 - 30 September 1985 



No. Closed 



No . No . 

Filed Discrimination 



Discrimination 



Race/Color 


115 


24 


Religion 


3 


1 


Age 


46 


9 


Sex 






Female 


29 


6 


Male 


6 


1 


National Origin 


14 


1 


Handicap 


27 


3 


Other (Reprisal, Harassment, 3 


1 


etc.) 







243 



46 



93 



total work force, AMC continued making significant EEO gains. Both women 

and minorities gained in numbers and/or percentages in all categories 

except the super grades and minorities in the lower grades. (Chart next page) 

Special Emphasis Programs (U) 

(U) Hispanic Employment Program . The number of Hispanics in all 
pay plans at the end of FY85 totaled 6,336 or 5.5 percent of the total 
work force. This reflects a numerical increase of 336 over FY84. Even 
though the overall percentile increase of Hispanics dropped from .2 
percent per year to .1 percent in FY8A. The percentile increase in the 
GS9-12 and GS/GM13-15 categories went from a .1 percent annual increase to 
a .2 percent increase in FY85. 

(U) The Command HEPM continued to serve as a resource person to the 
AMC Field Placement Office, Atlanta. As a result of participation in 
recruitment visits to the University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez campus, the 
HEPM helped to recruit 12 Hispanic engineers for employment in AMC's 
Engineering Intern Program. The FY85 recruitment trip included a second 
university (UPR, Arecibo) and interviewed students for Schedule B as well 
as engineering positions. Five Schedule B students came onboard in FY85 
as result of this trip. 

(U) Federal women's Program . The representation of women did not 
improve significantly in FY85. However, the pipeline to high grade levels 
remained healthy. Although some goals were not met, AMC did experience 
numeric increases in all but one category. General Thompson continued to 
be concerned about AMC's not meeting its goals for minorities and women at 
the GS-12 and above grade levels. Renewed emphasis was being placed in 
this area throughout the command. Numeric and percentile increases for 
Hispanics and women showed the positive effect this emphasis had. 

Military Equal Opportunity Program (U) 

(U) Program Management . As part of a renewed emphasis, staff 
assistance visits/program evaluations were conducted by EO staff personnel 
at four major subordinate commands: AVSCOM, MICOM, TROSCOM, and DESCOM 
(three depots). SFC Holmes of the AMC Office of Equal Opportunity 
assisted HQ DESCOM in conducting an EOA Course held in Pueblo, Colorado 
from 3-7 June 1985, for their part-time officer and enlisted EOAs. The 
purpose of the course was to instruct the military EOAs and depot-level 
chiefs of EO offices, who also attended, about their duties and 
responsibilities in administering the Army's EO program. Personnel from 
all the depots received instruction in EO education and training programs, 
complaint management, affirmative action plans and statistical reporting. 

(U) Staffing . Equal Opportunity Staff Officer (EOSO) 
authorizations were increased from 7 to 10 in January 1985 when HQDA gave 
the command three out-of-cycle EOSO authorizations. However, these 
positions had not been filled at yearend, and five EOSO positions were 
encumbered. Equal Opportunity NCO authorizations increased from 22 to 23 



94 



M 
X 

CD 
O 

C 
rt 

< 

CD 

W 
CD 
H 
< 

O 

CD 









BB 




s 




£ 






, — * 


H- 


^-^ 


H- 


^~^ 


01 


a 


Q 


^3 


cn 


Oi 


cn 


? 


H 


o 


en 


3" 


CO 


CL 


cn 


(D 


M 








\ 


M 


\ 


M 




M 


H 


o 


s 


CD 


s 




£ 


UJ 


OJ 


l-f 


« 




cn 


O 


w 


1 


1 


Cu 




<n 




^ 




H 


H 


a 


H 


hj 


o 


CD 


o> 


Cn 


in 


to 


o 


DJ 


cn 


a 


3 






03 


1 


a 


i 


a» 


a 


CD 


QJ 




M 


CD 


o 


0) 




a 


3 




to 


cn 


U3 






a 


a 




— ' 




— ' 





H 
to 



Ln 



<J3 



to 



H 1 

cn 









s 










H 


CJ 


■c» 


o 










(T> 


cn 


ID 


l*i 


►3 








^ 


^ 


» 


*■ 











M 


CJ 


00 




ft 








Cn 


VO 


VO 


*J 


CD 








£> 


CJ 


t- 1 


O 

n 

o 

CD 


H 








M 


cn 


o 












•» 


■» 


^ 


2 




U) 






cn 


o 


o 


H- 




O 






cn 


^J 


fO 


3 










UJ 


^J 


£* 


O 




CD 






^^ 


^~. 


<-^ 


H- 




>0 




►a 


H 


t-> 


CO 


rt 








w 


o 


& 


O 


^ 




cn 


2 


o 


• 


• 


• 






ji. 


H 


o 


co 


CJ 


to 








o 

H 

^3 


cn 




cn 


O 


s 






K 


h3 




^ 


■* 


o 






\ 


> 


03 


cn 


cn 


3 






§ 


i-3 


M 


CJ 


\o 


CD 






O 


M 


CO 


cn 


o 


3 








CO 
►3 


^—^ 


„ — , 


^-^ 








2 


H 




M 


*» 










o 


cn 


cn 


H" 










cn 



vO 



Cn 



to 

U3 



cn 

cn 
cn 

CJ 



cn 



CD 

to 

o 



o 



CO 



cn 



CJ 

cn 



to 



oo 



CJ 

to 



00 



cn 

£^ 
CJ 



-J 

00 



-J 
cn 
to 



vo 



to 
o 

to 

to 

CJ 



to 



o 

*- o 

rt 
O M 
o 

CD 



- 


3 


LJ 


cn 


H- 


o 


to 


3 




O 





cn 




l-« 


I'D 


,-^ 


H- 


tJ 


to 


rt 




o 


^< 


CO 

cn 



95 



with the establishment of an authorized position at Seneca Army Depot. 
This was the highest percentage of filled EO NCO positions the command had 
ever obtained. 

(U) Education and Training . During FY85, 95.6 percent of civilian 
supervisors of military personnel received training in Equal Opportunity, 
and 93.7 percent of military personnel were trained. 

(U) Promotions . The EO staff conducted quarterly assessments of 
the E5 and E6 promotion rates. There was a slight overall improvement in 
the E5 and E6 promotion rate compared with FY84. 

(U) Military Justice Actions . During 1985 the total number of 
Article 15s given to minority soldiers decreased from the number given in 
FY84. Even though the number of courts-martial given in FY85 decreased, 
the number given to minority soldiers increased. Minority soldiers 
received five out of eight courts-martial for FY85. 

Information Management (U) 

(U) Readiness . A total Army prepared for the "Three Days of War": 
to deter the day before war; to fight and win on the day of war; and to 
terminate conflict in such a manner that on the day after war, the United 
States and its Allies have an acceptable level of security. 

(U) Materiel Release Order (MRO) Rewrite . LSSA completed a 
rewrite of selected materiel release order ADP tasks in the MRO processing 
system. The rewrite resulted in significant computer time savings at the 
depots and MRO documentation being delivered to supply operations 
personnel four hours earlier in the day. 

(U) Total Package/Unit Materiel Fielding (TP/UMF) . TP/UMF was the 
largest single new AMC mission that was supported by ALMSA in FY85. A 
fielding requirement data base allowed for the automated management of the 
total materiel requirements list needed for a weapon system or unit 
fielding. Requisitions were generated and funded automatically. Retail 
automated systems documentation was produced automatically. 

(U) Work Ordering and Reporting Communications System (WORCS) . 
ALMSA released WORCS to all MSCs on 15 August 1985. WORCS was a total 
management system for Procurement Work Directives (PWDs) received and 
issued to sources outside the MSC. The system included the capability for 
sending and recording all PWDs for hardware and services, all 
appropriations and type of financing. This system was expected to 
minimize manual entry of data and provide external reporting automatically 
through normal file update. 

(U) Duplicate Emergency Files (DEF) Program . DEF Program was 
established to ensure the survivability of documents required by a 
headquarters for essential operations in an emergency. 



63 Office of Equal Opportunity historical submission, FY85. 



96 



(U) AMC Program Managers (PM) Secure Voice Net . The AMC PM Secure 
Voice System was a network, to provide secure voice communications between 
HQ AMC and 35 AMC PM and their contractors throughout CONUS. On 30 
September 1985, 32 PMs and 32 contractors were operational with terminals 
scheduled for completion during FY86. 

(U) CONUS Telephone Modernization (TELMOD) . The AMC telephone 
network employed archaic switching methods. The TELMOD program was a 
project to upgrade these switches with digital electronic switching 
systems. This program included 35 AMC switches. New electronic switches 
were successfully replaced at ARDC (Dover), AMCCOM (Rock Island), and 
TECOM (Aberdeen). Seven more AMC locations were in the competitive 
acquisition process. A related program to upgrade base transmission 
(cable) facilities was also underway. 

(U) Test and Prototype of Automated Autodin Interface (AAI) . NCR 
COMTEN AUTODIN package and the AAI were installed at AVSCOM in November 
1984 for familiarization tests. AAI passed the DCA certification in April 
1985. The prototype of AAI was successfully conducted at AVSCOM during 
May and June 1984. Proliferated AAI to the next MRC (TACOM) was made 
during August 1985. 

(U) Single Process-Integrated File (SPIF) . When TSARCOM was 
split into AVSCOM and TROSCOM, AMCIM conducted a study to determine the 
most cost-effective method of providing each of the commands with its 
required data processing support. The most obvious solution was to 
reestablish two unique data processing installations, with a full array of 
redundant hardware. A more logical alternative involving major 
modification to the Commodity Command Standard System (CCSS) software was 
also considered. After evaluation of the costs of the two solutions, the 
second was found to be substantially more cost effective and was chosen, 
at a net expenditure avoidance of approximately $2 million. Such 
modifications were delivered on time to meet the mandatory 1 October 1985 
requirement. 

(U) Conversion of Data Bank Systems from the Control Data Computer 
3300 to IBM Plug Compatible Machine . LSSA completed a 2 1/2 year project 
to convert 88 systems from Control Data 3300 to state-of-the-art hardware 
and data base management systems. The Control Data computer was released 
in August 1985. This conversion effort provided on-line data access query 
capabilities to the AMC staff with significant improvements in systems 
reliability and response time. 

Human (U) 

(U) ADP Intern Class (ALMSA) . AMC objectives were to attract 
highly qualified candidates which would otherwise not have entered the 
career field because of hardships encountered through long-term training. 
One class was held September-December 1984 at Southern Illinois 
University, Edwardsville, Illinois. The benefits of off site training 
greatly enhanced the learning environment, class average was one of the 



97 



highest recorded by AMETA and the highest ever recorded by ALMSA. Travel 
and per diem savings were realized by conducting the class at a site that 
minimized the interns' travel. 

(U) EEO Update at ALMSA . The women workforce, which increased by 
1 percent CLF was within .6 percent of the St. Louis Civilian Labor Force 
(CLF). The black male was increased by .5 percent, bringing it within .7 
percent of the CLF. The black female CLF was increased by .8 percent, 
putting it over the CLF, along with the American Indian. Women and 
minorities were well represented in upper management positions. There 
were 11 women in grades GM-13 through GM-15 and 10 males in grades GM-13 
through GM-15. There was a total of 21 women and minorities in upper 
management positions which represented .21 percent of the total workforce. 
Concerning overall EEO goals, steady progress was made; however, 
improvements were required in the area of women in higher levels of 
management. 

(U) UNIX ADP Intern Program . AMC developed a new ADP intern 
training curriculum specifically designed to support the office automation 
environment. The interns produced from this curriculum would serve as 
systems administrators for support of the micro-computer systems acquired 
for HQ AMC. Two classes were graduated with the third, and probably last 
class scheduled for graduation in November 1985. 

(U) Productivity Center Planning Committee (PCPC) . The PCPC was 
established to identify the attributes and properties of the design 
automation tools to be used at ALMSA and to develop a plan for acquisition 
and use of a tool kit. The objectives of developing a tool kit were to 
provide for standardization of methods and increase productivity. The 
mission was accomplished 2 May 1985 with the submission of a report 
containing the required plan with proposed milestones. 

(U) Army Privacy Program . Proposed forms, requesting personal 
information on individuals, were reviewed to ensure that they were in 
compliance with the Privacy Act of 1974 and AR 340-21, and to ensure that 
new or revised systems of records subject to the Privacy Act were 
published in the Federal Register. 

Materiel (U) 

(U) Security Assistance Automation, Army (SA3) . The SA3 was an 
army-wide project that would provide necessary automated hardware, 
software and communications in order to fully support the US Army 
Security Assistance Program. Phase I of the SA3 design included a 
Security Assistance case management centralized data base within the CCSS 
environment that would provide a single repository for case management 
data elements. Phase II design and programming was scheduled to begin 
prototype testing; and Phase III would be Implemented in FY86. 



98 



(U) DA Micro Computer . The DA Micro Computer Buy was implemented 
in 1985. LSSA was assigned the responsibility to convert office support 
software to operate on the DA Micro Buy computer. This conversion effort 
was completed and guidance was distributed to the field on the procedure 
to be used by any AMC organization to acquire that software. 

(U) Maintenance Shop Floor System . The Maintenance Shop Floor 
System was developed and prototyped at Corpus Christi Army Depot and 
accepted by DESCOM as the standard shop floor system for the depots. This 
system automated all of the shop floor operations and projected payoffs 
for the customer of $39,121 million through FY93. It was planned to field 
the shop floor system at all DESCOM installations by November 1986. 

Future Development (U) 

(U) Multi-Function Workstation (MFWS) . The MFWS provided a 
baseline set of automated tools for the office environment. Tools 
provided in the initial release were: User - Interface to file system 
utilities; Editor - Text editor; Output - Text formatter; Message - 
Electronic Mail; Track - General purpose project/suspense tracking; 
Toolbox - Access to other AMC tools and locally-developed tools; 
Calculator - Full function scientific calculator. MFWS was successfully 
prototyped at HQ AMC during FY85. 

(U) ALMSA Strategic Plan . The ALMSA strategic planning effort 
developed the first long-range plan, directions, and concepts for 
automation to support the needs of DA and AMC into the 21st Century for 
future information systems, corporate data bases, and advanced computer 
technology. Major objectives and sub-objectives in the ALMSA Strategic 
Plan included the development of a 3-tier technical architecture, 
evolution of the CCSS into an information systems architecture, use of 
design automation tools, development of a standard workstation, use of a 
standard data dictionary /directory in conjunction with Local Area Networks 
(LAN) and the Defense Data Network (DDN). 

(U) Supercomputer Network . After acquiring AMC approval in 1984 
for the supercomputer network, DA supported a request for FY86 
congressional reprogramming which was favorably received by DOD and 
Congress. Ballistics Research Laboratory (BRL) was selected as the 
location for an interim supercomputer and the follow-on "target" 
supercomputer . 

(U) Information Supply System (ISS) . ISS was an automation tool 
which would provide the capability to retrieve information stored in 
remotely distributed heterogeneous data bases, using an English language 
query capability, without requiring the requestor to be aware of either 
the physical location or method of that information. Plans called for the 
installation of a prototype ISS configuration at the Security Assistance 
Office at AMCCOM during FY86. 

(U) Army Electronic Mall . Representatives from Army Commands, 
including the Information Systems Command, AMC, 7th Signal Command, Force 
Development Command, TRADOC, the Intelligence and Security Command and DA 



99 



Staff Information Management, attended initial meetings which resulted in 
the standardization of Army electronic mail. The revised procedure was 
expected to enhance capabilities to communicate at all levels within an 
organization and across commands. 

(U) AMC Video Teleconferencing Network . AMC, through ISC and DCA, 
manages contracts for an AMC ten-studio, CONUS-wide, multipoint, secure, 
full motion, digital video teleconferencing network for FY86 
implementation. This was the first of its kind within Government. 

(U) Standard Depot System at Mainz . Preliminary work was 
accomplished during FY85 which was expected to lead to exporting the 
Standard Depot System to Mainz Army Depot, West Germany. Mainz was 
scheduled to receive the Standard Depot System supply applications by 1 
October 1986. 

Management (U) 

(U) Local Area Networks . AMC installations were directed to 
develop common user local area networks, which would serve as the final 
stages of distribution for DOD-wide area networks providing connectivity 
between subscriber terminations. This was in consonance with Army 
doctrine on information system architecture and provided the key link in 
the Three-Tier Architecture. Thirty-four installations were considered 
for the installation of broadbank LANs. Seven already had some degree of 
LAN capability installed. The remainder were either in the engineering 
process by US Army Information Systems Engineering Command, or had been 
included for planning in the 1985 IMP submissions. 

(U) AMC Data Dictionary . The purpose of the AMC Data Dictionary 
was to provide a vehicle for common understanding and control of data 
among users of standard systems within the AMC community. Products of the 
AMC Data Dictionary were all the CCSS Release 70 Copy Members and File 
Guides. The AMC Data Dictionary was installed at AMCCOM to support the 
DOD Standard Ammunition program. 

(U) ALMSA Tiger Team . An ALMSA Tiger Team was formed to determine 
the ADP vulnerabilities of AMC MRCs. A team exercise was conducted at 
CECOM in February 1985 and AVSCOM in May 1985, and the results were sent 
to ADPSSO. The results of these exercises brought about increased 
security awareness throughout AMC, identified areas of vulnerability, and 
promoted solutions. 

(U) Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) . Critical 
changes for initial implementation of CICA were successfully proliferated 
to all MSCs in order to comply with the law on 1 April 1985. Revised CICA 
changes for negotiating authority and extended competition code were 
proliferated during the week of 29 April 1985. 



100 



(U) Breakout Savings Report . In December 1984, ALMSA played a major 
role in in providing AMC with programs that extracted CCSS data essential 
to providing input to the Breakout Savings Report required by DOD on 10 
December 1984. As a result of total effort, HQ AMC was able to identify 
$53.3 million in actual savings and an additional $134.9 million in 
estimated savings within scheduled deadlines. 

(U) Congressional Action on Acquisition of ADPE . The 1984 
Appropriations Bill Conference Report placed significant restrictions on 
future ADPE leasing and requested a comprehensive study be conducted of 
all existing leases to determine if purchase would be more economical. 
AMC developed, in accordance with HQDA guidance, a 5-Year Buy-Out Plan 
spanning FY84-88. This plan allowed for progressive purchase of all 
existing AMC ADPE which was not technically obsolete and all planned 
leases approved prior to congressional restrictions. Projected lease 
savings for both existing and planned leases over a 5— year period was $136 
million. The total purchase dollars required to realize this savings was 
$52 million. Results of the FY84 buy-out period ending June 1985, was the 
purchase of $3.6 million of leased AMC ADPE culminating in a $19 million 
savings in lease costs over the subsequent 5 years. 

(U) General Ledger by Mission (GLA) . GLA was LSSA's and HQ DESCOM's 
number one financial priority project. This initiative would capture 
actual financial data by mission, facilitating the comparison of budgeted 
data with actual data. This project was expected to be implemented on 1 
October 1985 in all DESCOM depots and three AMCCOM ammunition activities, 
and would significantly reduce manual effort. 

(U) Information Systems Plan (ISP) . The ISP was a technique that 
enabled organizations to identify critical information and provide a 
priority architectural baseline for the information systems required to 
support management needs. It was a strategic plan and would be used for 
AMC's Information Management portion. The HQ AMC ISP was completed in April 
1985. The recommendations and 48 resulting actions were assigned. 
Guidance for completing ISPs was distributed throughout AMC. 

Training . 

(U) Multi-Machine Scheduler (MMS) to Pacific . The MMS was the AMC 
standard scheduling system for CCSS processing in the IBM environment. 
USASCH MISO, Fort Shatter, Hawaii, was also a user of MMS. Due to their 
successful use of MMS it was requested for use in the Pacific ADP Service 
Centers. During FY85, MMS was installed by ALMSA personnel at both Tageu 
and Seoul, Korea. 

(U) Computer Literacy Course . With the advent of new computer 
automation development, the rapid deployment of associated new 
technologies and the increasing demand for personal interaction with 
computer systems. A need existed for computer literacy training. DCSIM 
in collaboration with ALMC personnel developed an initial Program of 
Instruction that introduced contemporary topics and techniques, 



101 



demonstrations and practical exercises. The first class was held in January 
1985 at Fort Lee, Virginia. Class room hardware was available for actual 
"hands on" use. A large enrollment for FY86 was expected. 



64 State of the Nation, FY85, AMCIM. 



02 



CHAPTER II 



FORCE MODERNIZATION (U) 

(U) This chapter discusses a number of programs that directly 
impacted Force Modernization. It also discusses efforts to develop, 
upgrade and field specific weapon systems, although in this area an 
interested reader should also consult the Annual Historical Reviews of 
the relevant commodity commands. In addition, it should be noted that 
Force Modernization encompassed much of the mission of AMC during this 
fiscal year, and not only information in this chapter but much that is 
discussed in the rest of the history is concerned with the issue of 
Force Modernization. 

F orce Modernization Program s (U) 

Total Package/Unit Materiel Fielding (TP/UMF) (U) 

(U) On 17 August 1984 the Functional Area Assessment of the 
TP/UMF program was presented to the VCSA. It showed that the 8~item 
test in FY84 had been a success, and as a result the system was 
expanded to 24 systems for FY85. Of the 24, 13 were actually fielded 
in FY85, with the remaining systems slipping to later dates for a 
variety of reasons. In addition, AMC was directed to develop a 
schedule for the expansion of the program in FY86 and beyond. 
Subsequently, an additional 57 systems were approved for FY86 fielding, 
and AMC proposed that TP/UMF be used for all AMC fielded systems in 
FY87. In February 1985 the VCSA also directed that the TP/UMF 
procedures be used in tests for converting and activating Attack 
Helicopter battalions with the Apache helicopter. 

(U) FY85 saw the programming completed for the main TP/UMF 
management tool, the Fielding Requirements (FRET) Data Base, which 
would enable fielding commands to generate requisitions on line and to 
track how well they were filled. 

(U) On 1 June 1985 an interim DA Circular on TP/UMF policy was 
published. It was to expire 1 June 1986, by which time the TP/UMF 
would have been incorporated into permanent Army regulations on 
materiel fielding. This new regulation was the result of a direction 
from HQDA DCSLOG that AR 700-127 be revised. Although AR 700-127, on 
Integrated Logistics Support, contained a chapter on Materiel 
Fielding/Transfer, "HQ AMC recognized the need for one cohesive 
document providing regulatory guidance on materiel fielding/transfer 
and materiel release." During FY85 a new draft regulation was thus 
being prepared on materiel fielding/transfer. At the same time, AR 
700-127 on ILS was being revised, and a new DA Pamphlet 700-xx, 



103 



Instructions for Materiel Release/Transfer, was being drafted. These 
draft regulations were staffed Array-wide and it was anticipated that 
they would be sent to HQDA in December 1985. In addition, MRSA 
published a TP/UMF regulation, MRSA Pamphlet 700-6, which contained a 
foreword by General Thompson. * 

Integrated Logistics Support (ILS) (U) 2 

(U) ILS was part of the management process in support of overall 
Force Modernization. The ILS management goals were to: 

a. Influence materiel system requirements and 
design to achieve and sustain established levels 
of operational readiness while minimizing support 
requirements . 

b. Insure that all elements of manpower, training, 
and logistics are planned, developed, tested, evalu- 
ated, procured and deployed concurrently with 
materiel systems. 

c. Prepare the actual user and the functional per- 
sonnel, training and logistics systems to operate and 
support materiel systems when fielded. 

d. Provide procedures to integrate and acquire the 
ILS elements effectively. 

e. Improve logistics interoperability and standard- 
ization of materiel within DA, other Services and 
allied nations.-* 

(U) Army Management Milestone Syste m. This new reporting 
system would compile the current ILS Milestone Reporting System and the 
Force Modernization Milestone Reporting System. Work was underway to 
develop this new automated system. 

(U) ILS Reviews and Analyses . In the third quarter of FY84 AMC 
had started doing a review and analysis of its ILS operations to show 
its performance in various areas of ILS. In FY85 action was underway 
to automate all but the narrative portion of the review and analysis, 
and it was anticipated that it would be exported to the MSCs and PMs in 
FY86. In the third quarter of FY85 the first DA ILS review and 
analysis was produced. 



1 SMT AHR input, FY85. 

2 For the reorganization of the ILS Division at HQ AMC, see the 
section on SMT in the Materiel Readiness chapter. 

3 AR 700-127, Logistics: Integrated Logistics Support, 15 May 1983, 
paragraphs 1-7 and 1-8. 

4 SMT AHR input, FY85. 

5 Ibid. 



104 



(U) ILS Funding . The DARCOM ILS Program Study of 1982 had 
recommended that the visibility and control over ILS funds be improved. 
In response AMC published, in May 1984, AMCR 700-26 which provided the 
official AMC structure to accomplish that recommendation by fencing ILS 
funds. In 1985 implementation efforts focused on resolving several 
issues concerning the basic approach of the regulation, "do the 
potential benefits of the ILS funding policies as imposed by the 
regulation offset costs in personnel and other resources necessary to 
install and operate the required new procedures?" Discussions between 
AMC's DCS for Supply, maintenance and Transportation and the DCS for 
Resource Management resulted in the establishment of a proposed course 
of action that would be presented to the command group for approval 
during the first quarter of FY86.6 

(U) DA Pamphlet 700-55 . AMC had been tasked to prepare DA 
Pamphlet 700-55, Instructions for Preparing the Integrated Logistics 
Support Plan. It was published on 28 June 1985. 7 

System Operational Readiness Review (U) 

(U) In 1984 the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army asked that AMC 
develop a system for the user and materiel developer to get together 
early in the materiel fielding process in order to discuss problems and 
corrective actions for them. The vehicle devised for this purpose was 
the System Operational Readiness Review (S0RR). It consisted of 
meetings held from six to nine months after the first unit equipped 
date and culminated in a two-star meeting jointly chaired by TRAD0C and 
AMC. The pilot SORR was conducted in April and July 1985 for the 
Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS). It developed corrective actions 
for problem areas in the fielding of the MLRS and also served as a 
basis for a joint AMC/TRADOC regulation on the SORR which was to be 
published in the fourth quarter of FY86.° 

SMT's Force Modernization Integration Division (U) 

Reorganization (U) 

(U) In June 1985 SMT's Force Modernization Integration Division 
lost some personnel and functions when responsibility for the 
management of AMC's input into the VCSA Functional Area Assessment 
Program and responsibility for the CG, AMC's Program/Product/Project 
Manager Materiel System Assessment (PMSA) were transferred out of SMT. 
They were transferred into a new System Assessment and Program Office 
in the Office of the Deputy for Management and Analysis. In FY85, 15 



6 Ibid. 

7 Ibid. 

8 Product Assurance and Test AHR input, FY85 

105 



PMSAs had been presented to the CG, AMC, resulting in 292 issues and 
506 actions that were worked on by HQ AMC and its subordinate commands 
and activities. 

Fu nctional Area Assessm e nts (FAA ) ( U ) 

(U) The VCSA had directed a series of FAA to review the Army's 
ability to execute its Force Modernization Program by ensuring that all 
factors relevant to organization development and materiel system 
acquisition and fielding were properly integrated. AMC's role in the 
FAAs was to examine selected new equipment to assure that problems were 
identified for solution prior to fielding. After the FAA, AMC was 
usually assigned actions in its areas of responsibility to correct 
deficiencies disclosed by the FAA. In 1985, 12 FAA were completed. *■" 

FY85 FAAs 



FAA 



Date Presented 
to VCSA 



Total 
Actions 



Total AMC 
Actions 



Adjutant General/ 
Finance /Chaplain/ 
Public Affairs 

Military Police 

10th Infantry Division 

Biological 

Transportation 

Special Operating 
Forces 

Test and Evaluation 

Mobilization 

Depot Maintenance II 

Field Artillery 

Decision Systems 



18 Oct 


84 


91 


19 Nov 


84 


63 


20 Dec 


84 


153 


10 Jan 


85 


72 


5 Feb 


85 


78 


2 Apr 


85 


222 


13 May 


85 


69 


23 May 


85 


204 


30 May 


85 


— 


30 Aug 


85 


138 


11 Sep 


85 


130 





4 

16 

21 

3 

17 

21 

2 

8 
12 



Source: FAA Listing, 1 Nov 86 



9 SMT AHR input, FY85, 
1° Ibid. 



106 



DAIG Special Inspection of Force Modernization (U) 

(U) The DA Inspector General conducted a special inspection 
of force modernization in the first half of 1982. As result, since 
1983 AMC had been taking actions to resolve 100 issues raised by the 
inspection. By the end of FY85, 87 of the issues had been closed and 
the remaining 13 were expected to be resolved by the end of 1987. ^ 

Army Modernization Information Memorandum (AMIM) (U) 

(U) The AMIM, DA Pamphlet 5-25, was published annually by DA to 
provide gaining commands with technical and resource information on new 
materiel systems. It was also used by the Army staff for program 
reviews, budget submissions, and as a baseline to justify programs to 
the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Office of Management and 
Budget, and Congress. AMC, which provided approximately 80 percent of 
the input into the AMIM, provided its input for the 1985 AMIM in 
October 1984. AMC and HQDA were also working together on an effort to 
automate the AMIM. 12 

Stratification Report of pri ncipal Items (U) 

(U) AMC provided to the Army Finance and Accounting Center 
(USAFAC) each year a report on the total dollar value of principal 
items in storage and in the hands of the using organizations. USAFAC, 
in turn, used this for an annual report to the Treasury Department. In 
October 1985 AMC provided USAFAC with a flash report which showed that 
there were $49.0 billion worth of principal items in use and $32.7 
billion in store for a total of $81.7 billion. The official report, 
including a narrative analysis, would be submitted in December 1985. 

Army Materiel Plan Modernization (AMP MOD) (U) 

(U) AMP MOD was an effort to modernize the production of the Army 
Materiel Plan, which amounted to a requirements document for the Army, 
by replacing its obsolete automated generation system with a more 
modern system. Increment I of the modernization plan involved 
software that would provide the capability to query and update on 
assets, losses, cost, procurement, maintenance, non-Authorized 
Acquisition Objective (AAO) requirements, and would also provide load 
and bridgeback capabilities to the previous automated system. Software 
development of Increment IB was completed in April 1985 and software 
development of Increment 1C was completed in July 1985. The Major Item 
System Map programs were completed by Computer Data Systems 
Incorporated in September 1985. The Software Qualification Test (SQT) 
for Increment I was conducted at TACOM in August and September 1985 



11 Ibid. 

12 Ibid. 

13 Ibid. 

^ For more on the Army Materiel Plan, see AHR for FY84 



107 



with completion of the SQT scheduled for November 1985. Full 
implementation of Increment I was projected for 15 March 1986. 
Increment II was also scheduled to be phased in, with the first phase 
scheduled for FY87. 15 

(U) The contract for the AMP MOD automated data processing 
equipment had been awarded to the Federal Data Corporation on 9 
November 1984 and by February 1985 the automated data processing 
equipment had been delivered at all Central Processing Unit Sites. By 
April 1985, all interim terminal equipment had also been delivered. ° 

Special Operations Forces (U) 

(U) As part of a HQDA/AMC effort to improve the readiness of 
Special Operations Forces (SOF), the equipment on hand status of SOF 
units was reviewed. Actions which followed included redistribution of 
equipment, validation of requirements, and special actions to ship 
equipment out of DA Military Priority List (DAMPL) status. As a result 
of this program, 14 of 17 units identified as not meeting the minimum 
level of readiness were raised to at least combat ready status, and the 
readiness capability of 17 other units also were raised significantly . *■' 

Light Infantry Divisions (U) 

(U) An Army and AMC high priority task was fielding the Army's 
five new light infantry divisions. The Force Modernization Integration 
Division served as AMC's sole point of contact in support of this 
program. During 1985 more than 4,000 requisitions were submitted by 
the 7th Infantry Division in support of their reorganization into the 
Army's first light infantry division, and the Force Modernization 
Integration Division took action on all of them. To date, all the 
elements of the 7th Infantry Division transitioned on time with the 
required equipment having been provided. During FY85, the Force 
Modernization Integration Division was also active in support of the 
startup of the new 10th Mountain Division. *° 

Specific Weapon Systems (U) 

Bradley Fighting Vehicle Systems (U) 

(U) In FY85 the two Bradley Fighting Vehicle Systems, the M2 
Infantry Fighting Vehicle and the M3 Cavalry Fighting Vehicle, were 
being assembled by the FMC Corporation's San Jose, California facility. 
The fourth year's production was complete and half of the fifth year's 



15 SMT AHR input, FY85. 

16 Ibid. 
Ibid. 
Ibid. 



17 
18 



108 



production of 600 systems was also accomplished. Production was on 
schedule and the April 1986 target date for completion of the fifth 
year's production was attainable. 1 ^ 

(U) Projected improvements for the Bradley included the TOW 2 
subsystem, a gas particle filter unit with a ventilated facepiece, an 
improved weapon interlock system, ammunition restorage, and other minor 
improvements that were to be included in new production vehicles as of 
1986. The planned block II modification was to include an improved 25mm 
gun and its ammunition, improved armor protection, and improved 
survivability. 20 

M16A2 (U) 

(U) Efforts continued in FY85 to determine if a day optic sight 
should be developed for standard use with the M16A2 rifle. TECOM tested 
a prototype M16A1 rifle designed by Colt Manufacturing which had a rail 
integrated into the upper receiver for mounting day and night sights. 
The Human Engineering Laboratory, following coordination with the small 
arms community, developed a plan to evaluate a rifleman's performance 
with a day optical sight versus the current iron sights. Tests were 
conducted at Fort Benning with both generic commercial optical sights 
and militarized sights. Although the results indicated a potential to 
acquire and hit operational targets at longer ranges using optical 
sights, it also indicated that additional testing was needed in bad 
weather conditions, arctic, close terrain, and low light conditions. 
Overall it was decided that the "results did not make a compelling 
un-ambiguous case for optics as a means of significantly Increasing 
shooter performance." Plans were being formulated for a briefing in 
FY86 to the Commander of the US Army Infantry School and TRADOC to 
discuss the results of the test and to formulate the FY86 program on 
this topic. 21 

MK19 MOD 3 Grenade Machine Gun (U) 

(U) In FY85 Development Testing II was completed and in September 
the Development Acceptance In-Process Review (IPR) was held. It was 
anticipated that early January would see the approval of the IPR 
minutes, which included changes to the 10 June 1985 Required Operation 
Capability statement and a recommendation that the weapon be type 
classified standard A. In addition, certification testing for the MK19 
vehicle was continuing. 



iy DCS for Development, Engineering and Acquisition AHR submission, 
FY85. 

20 DCS for Supply, Maintenance and Transportation AHR submission, 
FY85. 

21 DCS for Development, Engineering and Acquisition AHR submission, 
FY85. 



109 



(U) The anticipated date for First Article Testing slipped to 
February 1986 because the contractor was having manufacturing 
difficulties in making the welded receiver for the weapon. 

(U) A full materiel release was approved in June for the M430 
40mm high explosive dual purpose cartridge, and full production was 
underway at the Milan Army Ammunition Plant. In addition, the M918TP 
training round with realistic ground effects was tested and was type 
classified in December 1985. 

Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) (U) 

(U) AMC stopped acceptance of the SAW in May 1985 because of 
failures in the Production Comparison Tests and the discovery of 
quality defects. In addition, some user concerns surfaced which 
required weapon redesign. As a result, the Army stopped its 
solicitation for follow-on procurement. 

(U) A 1985 AMC-TRADOC plan to correct the problems was agreed to 
on 21 November 1985 by the HQDA DCSRDA. It involved, at no cost to the 
Government, contractor quality fixes and a sole source contract to 
redesign the buttstock, barrel, and handguard to protect the soldier's 
hands from the hot barrel. The approximately 6,500 weapons already in 
the depot or the field were to receive the quality modification by the 
contractor at no cost to the Government. It was anticipated that the 
weapon with the redesigned handguard would be ready for fielding by 
December 1986, and that user modification for the barrel and buttstock 
would be fielded by August 1988. 

(U) Some difficulties also existed with the SAW ammunition. 
Technical difficulties with ball and tracer cartridges at Lake City 
Army Ammunition Plant led to its having a delay in production. The 
problems with the ball cartridges were resolved and production 
commenced using tracer ammunition purchased from the manufacturer of 
the SAW, Fabrique Nationale (FN) of Belgium. Later testing in December 
1985 by the US Army infantry school found American produced tracer 
ammunition to be superior to that produced outside the Continental 
United States, but the gunners still experienced difficulty in 
observing the tracer rounds. Various potential fixes were being 
considered . ^2 

Mobile Protect ed Gun System (MPGS) Armored Gun System (AGS) (U) 

(U) During FY85 the Army considered but rejected the use of the 
M551 Sheridan as an interim assault gun for the light infantry 
division, the 9th ID, because the Sheridan would not be supportable in 
the quantities required. Instead, the decision was made that the 
interim weapon would be the HMMWV armed with the tube-launched, 
optical-sighted, wire-guided missile (TOW) system. An Army Interim 
Motorized Infantry Division Concept Analysis, however, again validated 



22 



Ibid. 



I 10 



the light infantry's need for a kinetic energy anti-armor capability. 
The Vice Chief of Staff of the Army approved a Required Operational 
Capability statement for this Armored Gun System and directed AMC to 
pursue an NDI acquisition strategy to obtain it; however, the lack of 
funding for this project through FY88 "will probably preclude program 
approval . " 2:J 

A dvanced Anti-Tank Weapon Syst e m - Medium (AAWS-M) (U) 

(U) The AAWS-M was planned to be a manportable, 33-45 pound 
replacement for the DRAGON that would have the capability of firing 
from within enclosures and of operating effectively in an obscurant and 
countermeasure environment. In 1985 ASARC I gave approval for a 
proof-of principle technical demonstration. A contract award was 
planned for September 1986. 

Foreign Equipment Upgrade Program (U) 

(U) A number of equipment upgrade programs for American equipment 
now used primarily by friendly foreign nations continued through FY85. 
These upgrade programs included 105 Howitzer ammunition, Armor Upgrade, 
90mm Recoilless Rifle ammunition, and 60mm Mortar. The Night Vision 
project was terminated due to lack of support from users. Toward the 
end of FY85, HQDA DCSLOG began a survey of allied and friendly 

countries to determine requirements for any additional upgrade 

25 
programs . ^ J 

XM-43 Airview NBC Protective Mask (U) 

(U) In 1985 the SM-43 mask transitioned from R&D to production. 
Due to its high success rate in testing and due to its maximum field of 
view, the user community was anticipating making it a General Aviation 
Mask. 26 

Army Helicopter Improvement Program (AHIP) (U) 

(U) The AHIP completed its Operation Tests in FY85, with results 
that it met or surpassed its Required Operation Capability and 
Specification Requirements. At a Milestone III review production of 
179 aircraft was authorized; however, additional testing was required 
to statistically prove that the AHIP was more combat effective than the 

97 

current Scout helicopter. ' 



23 Ibid and AMCR 700-26, May 1984. 

2 ^ DCS for Development, Engineering and Acquisition AHR submission, 

FY85. 

Ibid. 

Ibid. 

Ibid. 



Ill 



25 
26 
27 



CH-47D (U) 

(U) Initial fielding of the CH-47D medium lift helicopter at Ford 
Campbell was completed. A five year multi-year contract for production 
of the CH-47D was awarded to Boeing-Vertol. 8 

T-800-XX-800 Engine (U) 

(U) On 5 December 1984 a request for production (RFP) was issued 
for the development of the LHX T-800 Engine, and on 19 July 1985 
contracts for it were awarded on a firm fixed price basis to 
AVCO/United, a joint venture of Pratt and Whitney and AVCO Lycoming, 
and to the Light Helicopter Turbine Engine Company (LHTEC), a 
partnership between Garrett Turbine Engine Company and the Allison Gas 
Turbine Division of General Motors. The AVCO/United contract was for 
$240 million and the LHTEC contract was for $263.95 million. The first 
use of this 1200-Shaft Horse Power (SHP) generic power plant was to be 
in the Army's new family of light weight helicopter (LHX), although 
other rationalized engines of which this was the first were to be used 
in future rotor and fixed wing Army aircraft. Although it was planned 
to be a modern engine, it was not to exceed the limits of demonstrated 
advanced engine technology. It was to feature lower fuel consumption, 
an improved power to weight ratio, and improved reliability and 
sustainability over current engines. It was anticipated that the Army 
would purchase some 10,000 of these engines by the end of the century 
for a total program cost of approximately $3.8 billion. 

(U) This contract was innovative in several respects. 
Competition would be continued through development and procurement and 
the contractors were to sign up for unit price and support cost 
guarantees at the start of full scale production. The guarantees were 
made possible by telling the contractors what was needed but not how to 
do it, thus giving the contractors unusual flexibility.™ 

APACHE (AH-64 Advanced Attack Helicopter) (U) 

(U) A variety of Army-wide developments occurred in the Apache 
program. An Apache training brigade was formed at Ft. Hood and plans 
were being executed for a programmed April 1986 First Unit Equipped 
(FUE) of an Apache Attack Helicopter Battalion (7/17) under the Total 
Package Unit Materiel Fielding (TP/UMF) concept. AMC formed an Apache 
Special Operations Center for the TP/UMF fielding on 9 January 1986. 
The turnover of the first Apache to FORSCOM was expected to take place 
in late February 1986. 



28 
29 



Ibid and Weapon Fact Sheet, CH-47D. 

DEA Historical Report, FY85; DCS Procurement Historical Report, 
FY85; Pentagon Press Release, Memorandum for Correspondents, 
19 July 1985. 



112 



(U) On 10 December 1985, Secretary Marsh approved the award of 
the FY86 Apache contracts. There were 309 Apaches on contract. As of 
31 December 1985, 67 production aircraft had been turned over to the 
Army, and 48 of them had already been delivered to TRADOC. First 
Article Test V had been completed ahead of schedule on 18 December 1985 
with all test points completed as planned. 

(U) By the end of the calendar year training had been completed 
for 25 instructor pilots, 8 pilots, 5 maintenance test pilots, and 
others. All maintenance training devices had been shipped to Ft. 
Eustis and acceptance action was in process. ° 

Company Level Field Feeding Kitchens (CLFFK) (U) 

(U) The 7th Infantry Division was fully supplied with CLFFKs and 
the 25th Infantry Division was given some CLFFKs for testing at the 
Pohakaloa Training Area in Hawaii. Natick Research and Development 
Center assistance was to be provided for this test. 

Bundle Delivery System for C-141 Aircraft (U) 

(U) The stability of flight demonstration was performed at 
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, with satisfactory results for the 
vamp-down flight mode. Test pattern drops conducted at Edwards Air 
Force Base were satisfactory for continuation of the program. 32 

Automated Equipment Pipeline Test (U) 

(U) The Engineering Design Test model fabrication was completed 
and the testing was successful. The Operational and Organizational 
Plan was approved. It was anticipated that full scale engineering 
development would be waived because of the success of the program, and 
that it would proceed directly into production of hardware. ^ 

Arctic Fuel Dispensing Equipment (U) 

(U) Fabrication for the Development/Operational Test of both the 
forward area refueling system and of the fuel system supply point 
were completed and Arctic testing of the hardware was initiated. 4 

Assault Bridges (U) 

(U) Prototype design of the heavy assault bridge was completed 
and funds were made available for three prototypes, with the first one 
completed to the 75 percent stage. Two of the prototype bridges were 



30 

31 
32 
33 

34 



DCS for Development, Engineering and Acquisition AHR submission, 

FY85. 

Ibid. 

Ibid. 

Ibid. 

Ibid. 



113 



to be mounted on Ml chassis and the third on an M60 chassis. -* The 
fabrication of three prototypes of the light assault bridge was begun, 
with completion of the first scheduled for the summer of 1986. " 

Small Emplacement Excavator (U) 

(U) The production contract was awarded and First Article Testing 
was initiated at Aberdeen Proving Ground. ' 

Night Vision Intensification Devices (U) 

(U) In March 1985 CECOM, after close coordination between LTG 
Moore, the Under Secretary of the Army, and the staffs of various 
agencies, issued an innovative competition solicitation in which all 
known requirements for Night Vision Intensification Devices from FY86 
through FY89 were consolidated into one package with an estimated value 
of approximately $800 million. This package was considered especially 
innovative because it only told the contractors what results were 
required, not how to do the job. 

(U) This solicitation resulted in two five-year multi-year 
contracts, one for a joint venture between ITT and VARO for a total of 
$515,655,670 and one to Litton for $274,156,479. Although in most 
cases the order for individual items was split between the two 
contractors, in several cases the difference between the cost or 
quality offered by the contractors on a specific item was so great that 
the contract was split, 80 percent to one and 20 percent to the other, 
the greatest split possible according to the terms of the solicitation. 
In those instances AMC would follow up the award of these contracts by 
exercising its option to purchase the additional 20 percent of the 
initial solicitation from the contractor who obtained the 80 percent 
order of that item. Even though there would thus be only one instead 
of two manufacturers of certain items, both sources would be "producing 
tubes of the various technological types; thus a base for future 
competition will be maintained." In two instances the cost of a 
specific item from both contractors was considered to be unduly high. 
In the case of the Drivers Viewer, AN/VVS-2, in which the proposed cost 
was $1,740 more than the Government had recently paid for a similar 
item, AMC planned to resolicit. In the case of the Crew Served Weapon 
Sight, AN/TVS-5, in which the offer was 50 percent greater than a 
recent purchase of the same item, it was decided to accept it into the 
omnibus contract because it was for only 328 units at under $1.3 
million and because the bulk of the units was for the Marine Corpe 
which was willing to pay this premium price. ->° 



35 

36 
37 
38 



Ibid. 

Ibid. 

Ibid. 

DCS for Procurement Historical Report, FY85; Application Plan No. 

for the Night Vision Image Intensification Device; Memorandum for 

Under Secretary of the Army from GEN Thompson, subj: Update on 

Omnibus Night Vision Acquisition. 



I L4 



Omnibus Night Vi s ion Acquisition Split 

Device ' 

Night Vision Goggles, AN/PVS-5A&7 
Aviators Night Vision Imaging System, 

AN/AVS-6 
Individual Crew Served Weapon Sight, 

AN/PVS-4 
Crew Served Weapon Sight, AN/TVS-5 
Drivers Viewer, AN/VVS-2 
Spare Tubes: MX-9644 

MX-9644 with Magnifier 

MX-9916 

MX-10130 

MX-10160 

Source: Memorandum for Under Secretary of the Army from General 
Thompson, subj: Update on Omnibus Night Vision Acquisition. 

Short Range Defense Command and Control (SHORAD C2) (U) 

(U) An acquisition plan for an incremental approach to full scale 
production of SHORAD C2 was staffed and forwarded to HQDA; however, it 
was returned because of a 22 July 1985 ASARC decision to add a sensor 
to the system. At the end of the fiscal year Procurement was still 
working on adding the sensor to the acquisition plan. y 



O/ITT % 


Litton % 


60 


40 


80 








80 


80 











60 


40 


60 


40 


80 


20 


80 


20 


80 






Mu 



ltiple Launch Rocket System/Terminal Guidance Warhead (MLRS/TGW) (U) 



(F0U0) A research and development contract was awarded on 29 
November 1984 for a component demonstration substage of the validation 
phase for the TGW. This contract was a multinational development 
venture consisting of the United States, West Germany, England and 
France. The contract was awarded to a consortium of five campanies: 
MDTT, Inc., an American firm with an integrated staff that would act as 
the management focal point for the joint venture, Martin Marietta 
Corporation of the United States, Thomson Brandt Armaments of France, 
Thorn EMI electronics of England, and Diehl GmBH and Company of West 
Germany. The United States supplied $38 million of the approximate 
$100 million contract, which contract also contained options for a 
system demonstration substage and for a maturation phase that would be 
worth approximately $251 million if implemented. Concurrent with this 
award, a letter contract was entered into with LTV Aerospace Division, 
the prime contractor for the MLR, for the integration of the TGW into 



39 



DCS for Procurement Historical Report, FY85 



115 



the basic MLRS. The letter contract format had to be used since the 
details of the TGW could not be defined until after the selection of 
the warhead developer. u 

(U) The MLRS was envisioned as a versatile weapons system that 
could fire a variety of missiles and warheads, including in addition to 
the TGW and conventional explosives, a Sense and Destroy Army (SADARM), 
binary chemical, anti-tank mines, and deep attack tactical missile. * 

TOW (U) 

(U) Much of the procurement action concerning the TOW missile was 
related to the Senate Armed Services Committee's concern over the 
Army's acquisition strategy in light of the Competition in Contracting 
Act of 1984. As a result, the FY86 plan which requested approval of 
FY86 purchases and options for FY87 to FY89 was forwarded with the 
recommendation that only the FY86 purchase be approved. That was 
approved by the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Acquisition) 
on 15 August 1985, and plans were made to obtain a second source other 
than Hughes Aircraft to participate in part of the FY87 requirement. 2 

(U) Production of the TOW had been suspended in August 1984 
because of poor workmanship and quality assurance problems at Hughes 
Aircraft Company and Missile Plant but it resumed in December 1984. 4 -* 

Hellfire Missile System (U) 

(in The Hellfire was a laser-guided anti-tank missile that was to 
be used with the AH-64 Apache helicopter. Production had begun in 1983 
and the initial fielding of the system to TRADOC was accomplished in 
FY85 in order to establish a training base. By the end of FY85 all 
maintenance and parts manuals, as well as Depot Work Orders, for the 
system had been published, and organic depot repair capabilities had 
been activated at Anniston Army Depot in July 1985. 4 

(U) In FY85 contracts were let for the 4th production year of the 
Hellfire Missile, with Martin Marietta receiving a firm fixed price 
contract for 4,104 all-up-rounds worth $135.6 million and Rockwell 
International receiving a firm fixed price contract for 1,676 rounds 
worth $71.6 million. 45 



40 Ibid and Ltr, Manager of the MLRS Project to AMC, subj: Program 
Management Control System (PMCS) Monthly Status Report for the 
Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) Terminal Guidance Warhead 
(TGW) as of 3 Jan 86. 

4 * FY85 Input, DCSfor Supply, Maintenance and Transportation. 

42 DCS for Procurement Historical Report, FY85. 

4 -* DCS for Supply, Maintenance and Transportation Historical input, 
FY85. 

44 SMT AHR input, FY85. 

45 DCM for Procurement Historical Report, FY85. 



116 



Patriot Missile (U) 

(U) In November 1984 Raytheon Corporation, the prime contractor 
for the Patriot, was awarded a $113 million contract for Research and 
Development and Operational and Maintenance Army efforts and 
Engineering Services in support of the production of the Patriot. In 
January 1986 it also received a fixed price incentive contract for $697 
million for production buy 6. In addition, an Initial Production 
Facilities (IPF) contract for $70.8 million was awarded to increase the 
monthly capability to 80 missiles, 10 launchers, 1.25 fire units, and 
required spare parts as well as repair and return requirements. " 

(U) A $22.8 million contract for the Patriot Anti-Tactical 
Missile (ATM) program was awarded in June 1985, including software 
development of the Patriot ATM capability to provide self-defense for 
the missile batteries. 

(U) Based upon a request from Hercules Corporation, the Patriot 
Project Office submitted a plan for competitive procurement of the 
rocket motor to the AMC Staff and Mr. James B. Hall, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of the Army (Acquisition) in August 1985. Mr. Hall agreed 
not to pursue the competitive purchase of the rocket motor since the 
projected savings of $6 to $10 million were not worth the risk; 
however, MICOM did plan to break out the rocket engine among the 
existing contractors (Raytheon, Thiokol, and Martin Marietta) starting 
in FY87. 48 

(U) On 5 September 1985 the Under Secretary of the Army requested 
that a briefing be prepared to compare the benefits of multi-year 
procurement versus breakout. The resulting study showed that 
multi-year procurement offered greater savings.^ 

(U) FY85 saw the first deployment of a Patriot battalion in 
Europe. The arrival of troops and equipment in Germany commenced in 
January 1985 and on 5 March 1985 the first unit equipped date (FUED) 
was achieved by the first European Patriot Battalion, the 4/3 Air 
Defense Artillery at Giessen, Germany. ^0 

(U) On 28 August 1985 the US, Germany, and the Netherlands agreed 
to a weapons system partnership, under the auspices of the NATO Supply 
and Maintenance Organization (NAMSO), for coordinated logistic support 
of the Patriot, including selected secondary and major end item repair, 



46 
47 
48 



49 
50 



Ibid. 

Ibid. 

Ibid; Ltr, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition) to 

Commander, AMC, subj: Second Sourcing of Patriot Rocket Motors, 9 

Aug 85; Ltr, DCS Procurement to Commander, MICOM, subj: As above, 

4 Sep 85. 

DCS for Procurement Historical Report, FY85. 

DCS for Supply, Maintenance and Transportation Historical Report, 

FY85 and Facts on File Weapon Sheet, Patriot, July 1986. 



117 



missile surveillance, and recertif ication. A common Patriot missile 
repair and depot maintenance facility was to be operational by CY89. A 
Logistic Support Arrangement (LSA) to define the mission to be given to 
NAMSO and to specify the logistic services to be provided to the 
partnership was being staffed and was expected to be approved at the 
December 1985 NAMSO Board of Directors meeting. 51 

SGT York (U) 

(U) FY85 saw the elimination of a major weapon modernization with 
the cancelling of the SGT York, previously known as the Division Air 
Defense (DIVAD) gun system. An initial production contract for the SGT 
York in April 1981 had quantity options of 50, 96, and 117 fire units. 
The results of the limited test, conducted in August 1984, had not 
supported commitment to Option III and additional comprehensive testing 
was required by the Office of the Secretary of Defense and carried out 
from November 1984 to June 1985. These tests included the Initial 
Product Test, Follow-On Evaluation, and Limited Tracking and 
Evaluation. The results of the test were provided to the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense which announced on 27 August 1985 that the SGT 
York program was cancelled. The Army then began to evaluate other air 
defense options. 

M1A1 Abrams Tank (U) 

(U) Plans were developed to forward deploy the modified M1A1 
Abrams Tank to Europe. The planned distribution of the M1A1 was 
changed from 1,875 in Europe and 1,514 in CONUS to 3,343 in Europe and 
857 in CONUS, with M1A1 production increased from 7,058 to 7,467. The 
fielding would be done in accord with the TP/UMF policies starting in 
the third quarter of FY86, with AMC acting as the executive agent for 
the forward fielding. The fielding site was to be Vilseck with 
Boblingen as a candidate second site." 

155mm Howitzer, M109A2/A3 (U) 

(U) The M109A2 was the current production model of the 155mm 
howitzer, while the M109A3 was a physically similar and operationally 
identical variant. The Howitzer Extended Life Program (HELP) was 
initiated in early 1981 to improve the readiness and survivability of 
the howitzer. The Howitzer Improvement Program (HIP), designed to 
improve the armament and fire control of the howitzer, was approved by 
the VCSA in November 1984. 54 The VCSA directed that the HELP and HIP 
programs be merged and that they be applied to 1,700 M109A2/A3s. 
Operational Testing for HELP was completed in August 1985, and Product 



51 DCS for Supply, Maintenance and Transportation Historical Report, 
FY85. 

52 Ibid. There had been an extensive public debate on the SGT York 
prior to the decision to cancel it. 

53 Ibid. 

54 For more on HELP/HIP, see the FY84 AHR. 



L18 



Improvement Testing for HELP was scheduled to be completed In January 
1986. A special In-Process Review for both programs was scheduled for 
the third quarter of FY86 to make production decisions on long lead 
items and to attempt to incorporate as many HIP items as possible into 
HELP. Production of the kits for the HELP program was scheduled to 
start in the fourth quarter of FY86 with delivery to begin in the first 
quarter of FY88. IOC for HELP was scheduled for the second quarter of 
FY89. 55 

Improved TOW Vehicles (ITV) (U) 

(U) The $27 million FY85 buy of ITVs for use in the National 
Guard, added 125 ITVs to the Army and National Guard inventory. More 
significant was a product improvement program in progress in FY85 to 
modify the ITV so that they could fire the TOW-2 missile. This program 
was scheduled to be completed in FY86, with the modified ITVs being 
designated the M901A1. The ITV fleet was also selected for 
survivability enhancement. These enhancements had not yet been 
selected but those proposals under consideration included power, 
armored fuel tanks, spall liners, and bolt-on armor. " 

Field Artillery Ammunition Support Vehicle (FAASV) (U) 

(U) The FAASV were armored tracked vehicles designed to provide 
ammunition resupply for the 155mm and the 8-inch howitzers. They had 
superior ballistic protection, ammunition handling equipment, mobility, 
and vehicle commonality (the FAASV was based on an M109 chassis) than 
the current M548 which they were to replace on a one-for-one basis. 
The 155mm resupply vehicle, the M992, was fielded to TRADOC in 
September 1985, and the projected First Unit Equipped Dates for FORSCOM 
and USAREUR were November 1985 and March 1986, respectively. There 
were no current plans to field the XM1050 model for 8-inch howitzer 
resupply due to budgetary constraints. An In-Process Review to type 
classify both versions as standard was planned for December 1985. -*' 

Hawk (U) 

(U) Plans were being made to transition the Hawk Missile System 
to the Army National Guard. The PM prepared procedures to utilize 
TP/UMF to field the system to the New Mexico National Guard and the 
Materiel Transfer Plan was expected to be published in January 1986. ° 



55 DCS for Supply, Maintenance and Transportation Historical Report, 
FY85. 

56 Ibid. 

■*' Ibid and AMC Weapons Fact Sheet database. 
58 SMT AHR input, FY85. 



119 



Rolan d (U) 

(U) The New Mexico Air National Guard declared that Battery A, 
5th Battalion, 200th Air Defense Artillery, had achieved initial 
operational capability with the Roland on 1 March 1985. ^ 

Dragon (U) 

(U) The Dragon was a 1970s era anti-tank weapon still in use in 
the Army, although no longer in production. (For the planned 
replacement for the Dragon see the Advanced Anti-tank Weapons - Medium 
discussed above.) FY85 saw the completion in September 1985 of the 
change out of faulty ignitor motors for 19,000. Consideration was also 
being given to the Army's acquisition of 641 Iranian owned practice 
rounds. Ownership of these rounds would enable units without 
facilities that enabled them to safely fire high explosive, anti-tank 
rounds to continue practice firings of the Dragon through FY92. FY85 
also saw the approval of funds for the improvement of the Dragon 
warhead. "0 

Lance Missile System (U) 

(U) On 9 July 1985 the Under Secretary of the Army was briefed on 
the Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) for the Lance Missile System. 
He approved the minimum cost method of extending the life of the Lance 
into the mid-1990s. This primarily involved the modification of the 
electronic guidance system in order to improve the weapon's readiness 
rate. The SLEP modifications were started in FY85 and were projected 
to continue through FY89. 61 

Chaparral Missile System (U) 

(U) Fielding of the Chaparral Missile System to the New Mexico 

National Guard started in the first quarter of FY85 with the shipment 

of 12 fire units. Red River Army Depot was designated to be the 

staging site for the hand-off of the system in future fieldings to the 
New Mexico National Guard. *>2 

Nike-Hercules Phase Out (U) 

(U) The phase out of the Nike-Hercules tactical missile system in 
USAREUR in December 1984 resulted in the generation of a large quantity 
of excess Nike-Hercules materiel. Much of this was redistributed or 
sold. Equipment worth over $270 million, at standard Army prices, was 
sold to NATO and Far Eastern allies under the Foreign Military Sales 
program for $43 million. This not only recouped money but also 



59 

60 
61 
62 



Ibid. For more on the checkered history of the Roland, see the 

FY84 AHR. 

SMT AHR input, FY85. 

Ibid. 

Ibid. 



120 



resulted in a cost avoidance of another $3 million worth of 
transportation and demilitarization costs. Additional Nike-Hercules 
equipment worth more than $48 million was transferred to the Air Force 
and Navy to be used in testing new weapons. As a result, when the FY85 
phase out in USAREUR and the 1974-77 phase out in CONUS were taken 
together, over 80 percent of the Nike-Hercules assets were 
redistributed rather than eliminated through the property disposal 
route. 63 

UH60A Black Hawk Helicopter (U) 

(U) The Black Hawk fleet was grounded on 19 April 1965 following 
accidents at Fort Bragg, North Carolina and Fort Rucker, Alabama. The 
Fort Bragg accident was believed to have been caused by the absence of 
a bolt in the flight controls, and an inspection of the fleet found no 
other aircraft in which this was a problem. The Fort Rucker accident, 
however, had broader implications for the Black Hawk fleet. It was 
caused by the failure of the main rotor blade spindle, which resulted 
in a blade being thrown from the aircraft. This turned out to be a 
systematic problem and was corrected by the development of a 
load-sharing tie rod to be installed in the spindle. It was expected 
that the retrofit of the entire Black Hawk fleet would be completed by 
November 1985. 64 

Army Helicopter Improvement Program (AHIP) (U) 

(U) Development and operational testing of the OH-58D (AHIP) 
helicopter was completed in FY85, as were ASARC and DSARC reviews 
ending with DSARC III on 26 September 1985. The results were 
inconclusive because the OH-58D was unable to clearly demonstrate that 
it had operational superiority in supporting the attack and air cavalry 
roles in Operational Test II. As a result, the initial production 
aircraft were to be fielded only for the field artillery observer role. 
The decision as to further use of the aircraft was to depend upon 
additional tests that were scheduled to begin in January 1986 and be 
followed by a DSARC review in the summer of FY87. These tests were to 
be similar in nature to Operational Test II and were to 
involve force-on-force trials that would employ a mix of attack and 
scout aircraft operating in support of ground forces engaged in both 
offensive and defense scenarios. -* 

OV-lD/Side Looking Airborne Radar (SLAR) Transfer to Europe (U) 

(U) Planning was undertaken in FY85 for the proposed mid-1986 
transfer of the 0V-1D (Mohawk) SLAR aircraft to Europe. 66 



63 


Ibid. 


64 


Ibid. 


65 


Ibid. 


66 


Ibid. 



121 



Fielding of the RQ12D Improved Guardrail V (IGRV) (U) 

(U) Guardrail V is a combined airborne and ground system designed 
to intercept and locate enemy communications emittors. Guardrail V was 
mounted in a modified U-21 utility aircraft while the RC-12D Improved 
Guardrail V was carried in a modified C-12 utility aircraft. Two of 
the RC-12D Improved Guardrail V systems were sent to Europe in FY85, 
with one becoming operational that year and the other one expected to 
become operational in the first quarter of FY86. 6 ^ 

EH-60 Quickfix IIB Electronic Countermeasure System (Heliborne) (U) 

(U) The Quickfix series consisted of electronic warfare systems 
for various helicopters that would be used to intercept and jam enemy 
radio communications. They were to be organic to divisions, separate 
brigades, and armored cavalry regiments. The contract for the 
development of the Quickfix IIB system was awarded to TRACOR 
Industries, Austin, Texas. Program production reviews were held during 
FY85 at facilities in Austin and Laredo, Texas. The last facility 
involved, one in Mojave, California, was to have its review in the 
second quarter of FY86. The scheduled fielding date for the system was 
FY88. 68 

CH-47 Modernization Program (U) 

(U) The CH-47 medium lift aircraft was in the midst of a program to 
upgrade the aircraft by converting its A, B, and C models to the D 
model. FY85 was the fifth year of production for that program and it 
was marked by the signing of a 5-year contract for the conversion 
program. The contract was for $1,171 billion and it resulted in a 
projected savings based upon the anticipated cost of single year 
programs of $123.1 million. By the end of FY85 the Army had received a 
total of 71 CH-47D aircraft under previous years contracts. In 
addition, following negotiations between the United States and Italy, 
the US accepted 11 CH-47C aircraft built under license by Agusta of 
Italy for Iran. 69 

High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) (U) 

(U) Problems with the distribution of the HMMWV arose in CY85 
because the manufacturer, AM General, had decided to make more of the 
cargo versions and less of the TOW and armament version than had been 
specified in the contract. As a result, it was impossible to deploy 
the HMMWV in the required unit sets. Another problem compounding the 
situation was that the contractor was having engineering configuration 
problems with the Group II HMMWV. As a result the entire distribution 
plan for the HMMWV had to be revised. It also resulted in negotiations 



6 ^ Ibid. For information on the Guardrail, see Army 1985-86 Green 
Book (Oct 85). 

68 SMT AHR input, FY85 and Army 1985-86 Green Book (Oct 85). 

69 SMT AHR input, FY85. 



122 



between TACOM and AM General over contract production and delivery in 
which the CG, TACOM and the president of AM General were the main 
negotiators. ™ 

(U) The Group I HMMWVs were conditionally released, but only 
after delays resulting from a transportability issue. The vehicles did 
pass transportability tests in rail cars in accord with military 
standards, but only by using nonstandard tie«~down procedures. That was 
necessary because the standard tie-down procedures were designed for 
standard heavy vehicles traditionally used by the military and not for 
the high technology unique design of the HMMWV. As a result, action 
was taken to review the relationship between military transportability 
procedures and high technology equipment development . '1 



70 Ibid. 

71 Ibid. 



123 



CHAPTER III 

MATERIEL ACQUISITION (U) 

Organization (U) 

(U) In FY85 the final plans and preparations were made to 
implement the decisions reached during the Laboratory Effectiveness 
Improvement Program (LEIP) studies in FY84. The most drastic change 
was activation of Laboratory Command (LABCOM) on 1 October 1985, the 
first day of FY86. A new major subordinate command (MSC) of AMC, 
LABCOM 

(FOUO) Integrates the formerly independent laboratories and 
offices into a single cohesive command focused on the tech base 
and with the specific mission of transitioning advanced 
technology into the commodity commands ' product lines. The 
effect of these initiatives [sic] will be a reduction of the 
number of laboratories and offices directly reporting to HQ, AMC 
as well as a strengthening of the day-to-day management of the 
laboratories and their technical programs. One of LABCOM* s key 
roles is to concentrate on generic technologies, those advanced 
methodological and component developments with potential for 
application in many different commodity areas. Another is 
acting as the AMC focal point for the management of programs and 
activities that lead to or maintain the survivability and 
effectiveness of Army materiel in the battlefield environment. 
The corporate laboratories will provide independent technical 
advice and R&D [Research and Development] assessments. 

(U) LABCOM was formed by converting the headquarters of the 
Electronics Research and Development Command (ERADCOM) at Adelphi, 
Maryland, in place, into LABCOM. The Commander of LABCOM, the first 
of whom was Major General James C. Cercy, was responsible for 
managing the corporate laboratories. After the decision had been 
made to establish LABCOM, it was also decided to give the LABCOM 
Commander a second hat as the Deputy Chief of Staff for Technology 
Planning and Management (DCSTPM). As such he was made responsible 
for overall management of the AMC-wide technology base program, 
including planning and allocating tech base financial resources 
(6.1 funds for basic research, 6.2 funds for exploratory 
application of concepts toward military equipment, and 6.3a 
funds for non-system advanced development of generic equipment 
not yet a formal requirements program), review and analysis of 



For background on the LEIP, see AMC's AHR for FY84. 
State of the US Army Materiel Command, 1985. 



125 



the tech base, and the transition of advanced technology into 
operational use. This structure is "often seen in the private 
sector; namely, establish the dual hat position of Director of 
Corporate Laboratories and Vice President for Corporate Research 
and Technology." As DCS for Technology Planning and Management 
and as LABCOM Commander, the incumbent had offices at HQ, AMC, 
and Adelphi, Maryland, although "the organizational structure 
and the personnel required to execute the DCSTPM 
responsibilities [were] essentially in place at HQ LABCOM, 
Adelphi, MD." 3 

(U) Incorporated into AMC as subordinate organizations 
were the Ballistic Research Laboratory (BRL) at Aberdeen Proving 
Ground (APG), Maryland; the Human Engineering Laboratory (HEL), 
also at APG; Harry Diamond Laboratories at Adelphi; the 
Materials Technology Laboratory (MTL), formerly known as 
Army Materials and Mechanics Research Center (AMMRC) at 
Watertown, Massachusetts; the Electronic Technology and Devices 
Laboratory (ETDL) at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey; the 
Vulnerability Assessment Laboratory, formerly the Office of 
Missile Electronic Warfare (OMEW) at White Sands Missile Range, 
New Mexico; and the Army Research Office (ARO) at Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina. 

(U) Also stemming from the organization studies conducted 
as part of the LEIP was the planned establishment of full 
spectrum Research, Development, and Engineering (RDE) Centers at 
the Commodity Commands. These RDE Centers were to be created, 
effective 1 October 1985, from existing laboratories at the 
Commodity Commands (which were no longer to be known as 
laboratories, a term now reserved for the LABCOM research 
facilities) and from other RDE assets of the commands. The 
roles of the RDE Centers were to include: 



Memorandum, Chief of Staff to Deputy Chiefs of Staff, Subj: US 
Army Laboratory Command (LABCOM), 3 Feb 86 and Memorandum, CG, AMC 
to all AMC Headquarters Personnel, Subj: US Army Laboratory Command 
(LABCOM) /Deputy Chief of Staff for Technology Planning and 
Management (DCSTPM). One result of the reorganization will be that 
the AMC AHR in future years will not provide principal coverage of 
activities of the DCS for Technology Planning and Management. 
Instead, its activities will be encompassed in the LABCOM AHR 
beginning with FY86. 
DCS for Technology Planning and Management Historical Report, FY85. 



126 



* analyzing threats; 

* responding to user concerns; 

* maintaining awareness of technological and system 
opportunities arising out of academic, industrial, and 
other US and foreign government activities; 

* analyzing the marketplace to determine its ability to 
meet user needs; 

* identifying mature commodity-specific technologies 
amenable to four-year new equipment development at 
acceptable risk levels; 

* providing industry with independent research and 
development (IR&D) and market guidance; 

* managing the timely availability of essential 
technologies associated with emerging systems; 

* integrating maturing technologies into testable concept 
prototypes ; 

* planning the complete concept exploration phase of new 
systems; 

* demonstrating feasibility of systems in hands of field 
troops, the final users; 

* providing liaison with PMs and supporting them in such 
areas as configuration management and engineering documentation, 
producibility and production engineering, and technical problem 
solving; 

* conducting engineering development on the first buy for 
systems not managed by a PM; 

* supporting the development of product and block improvements; 

* providing life cycle engineering support for fielded 
systems. 



Proposed DE Centers 

MSC RDE Center 

AMCCOM Armament RDE Center (ARDEC) 

Close Combat Armaments 
Fire Support Armaments 



Chemical RDE Center (CRDEC) 



Ibid. 



127 



AVSCOM Aviation RDE Center (AVRDEC) 

Avionics Research & Development Activity 
Aviation Research & Developemnt Activity 
Aviation Engineering Flight Activity 

CECOM Communications Electronics RDE Center 

Electronic War fare /Reconnaissance, 

Surveillance and Target Acquisition 

Communications/ADP 

Night Vision and Electro-optics 

Signals Warfare 

MICOM Missile RDE Center (MRDEC) 

TACOM Tank-Automotive RDE Center (T-ARDEC) 

TROSCOM Belvoir RDE CENTER (BRDEC) 

Natick RDE Center (NRDEC) 



Source: DCS for Technology Planning and Management, 
Historical Report, FY85. 



(U) Another activity stemming from the LEIP was peer review of 
laboratories by the Army Science Board. Two such reviews were 
conducted in FY84: a favorable review of AVSCOM' s Avionics Research 
and Development Activity (AVRADA) and a critical review of TACOM' s 
R&D Center. These reports were forwarded to AMC by the Assistant 
Secretary of the Army (Research, Development, Acquisition) with a 
request that AMC comment not only on the reports but also "on the 
process that has produced them." Further ASB peer reviews were 
conducted in FY85. These included the Signals Warfare Laboratory, 
the Electronic Warfare Laboratory, the Atmospheric Sciences 
Laboratory, and AVSCOM's Research and Technologies Laboratory. All 
received generally favorable reviews. 



6 



See the FY84 AHR for further details regarding both reviews. 

Ltr, Assistant Secretary of the Army to CG, AMC, Subj: [Army 

Science Board Reviews], 8 Nov 84. 
8 

Army Science Board, Executive Summary Report Army Science Board 

Reviews of Signals Warfare Laboratory, Electronic Warfare 

Laboratory, Atmospheric Sciences Laboratory, June 1985; Army 

Science Board, Report of Army Science Board Ad Hoc Subgroup on 

Electronic Warfare Laboratory Effectiveness Review, June 1985; 



128 



(U) In response to the request from the Assistant Secretary of 
the Army that AMC comment to the peer review process, AMC stated that 
the "ASB peer review process is important" and provided "valuable 
insights. " 

(U) Going further, however, AMC established a task force headed 
by the Technical Director of the Natick Research and Development 
Center to review the reports' findings and recommend actions that AMC 
should take in response to the findings. After reviewing the 
reports and meeting with the chairmen of the two ASB review panels 
and with the management and staffs of the affected laboratories and 
MSC, the AMC task force agreed in general with the findings. Relative 
to the critical findings concerning the TACOM R&D Center, the task 
force recommended that establishment of the full spectrum RD&E Center 
in TACOM would solve most of the existing weaknesses. 

(U) At the urging of the CG that any necessary corrective 
measures be undertaken as soon as possible, a number of further steps 
were taken. 

(U) One of these was another but more detailed study of the 
need for a laboratory in the tank and automotive community and what 
should be done, if such a need existed, to make it a viable and 
productive laboratory. This resulted in a detailed plan by TACOM for 
its RDE Center. The plan was approved in the summer of 1985 and 
became operational on 1 October 1985. 

(U) In response to the criticism that there was a weakness in 
the transition of equipment from development at AVRADA to readiness 
at CECOM, AMC directed that by July 1985 the responsibility for 
readiness of aviation-unique electronics items would be transferred 
from CECOM to AVSCOM. 

(U) Action was also taken on some comments that appeared to 
reflect systemic problems in the R&D community rather than a problem 
of any one specific laboratory. The first problem concerned the 

Army Science Board, Report of Army Science Board Ad Hoc Subgroup 
on Atmospheric Sciences Laboratory Effectiveness Review, 
June 1985; Army Science Board Panel Review of US Army Signals 
Warfare Laboratory Final Report, June 1985; Report of the Army 
Science Board Independent Review of the US Army Research and 
Technology Laboratories, June 1985. 

Ltr, CG AMC to Assistant Secretary of the Army (RD&A), Subj: [ASB 
Review], 14 Feb 85. 



129 



difficulty of hiring and retaining scientific and engineering 
personnel. Not entirely remediable within the Command, AMC's 
response was a study by the DCS for Technology Planning and 
Management that led to a number of CG~approved personnel actions. It 
was recognized that an attack on the broader problem might require 
action by other agencies, such as the Office of Personnel Management, 
and Congress. 

(U) The other systemic problems related to the R&D 
procurement system, notably the administrative burden placed on 
technical personnel and the need to reduce procurement lead time. 
The Deputy for Management and Analysis was directed to study these 
problems and recommend solutions, a process that took until the end 
of the first quarter of FY86 to complete. Finally, the DCS for 
Technology Planning and Management was directed to monitor all the 
actions resulting from the Army Science Board Peer Review Process and 
the AMC Task Force recommendations and to develop an implementation 
plan for them. 

Independent Research and Development (IR&D) (U) 

(U) Under the IR&D program companies are allowed to charge the 
Government, as overhead costs on certain contracts the cost of running 
an independent company-controlled research and development program. 
Legitimate aims of such programs would be increasing basic 
knowledge, exploiting scientific discoveries, improving existing 
products and systems or creating new ones. If the company received 
more than $4.4 million in a given year it was required to submit 
annual technical plans and negotiate with the Government to establish 
a ceiling for the amount of such costs that it could recover the 
following year. In FY84, doubts about the benefits of this program 
for the Army surfaced, and led in FY85 to an effort to exert greater 
Army control over the IR&D program. At the direction of the VCSA, 
the Army changed its policy on negotiating cost recovery ceilings 
with contractors by adding a "factor based upon the degree to which 
the contractor's IR&D program focused on Army priorities." During 
FY85 this was used in negotiations to reward Army contractors whose 
IR&D programs were of great interest to the Army. The Navy and Air 
Force, however, refused to join in this approach for FY86, arguing 
instead that the current system of evaluating IR&D programs was 
adequately orienting them toward DOD priorities and that the Army 
approach would unnecessarily reduce the independence of the IR&D 
programs. Moreover, the Undersecretary of Defense for Research and 
Engineering eventually ordered the Army to drop this approach and 
instead join in the negotiation policies jointly established by all 
three Services. As a result, AMC planned in the future to try an 



130 



alternate approach of intensifying industry information programs to 
insure that contractors were made aware of Army priorities and 
needs. 

Technology Integration Office (U) 

(U) The Technology Integration Office (TIO) had been 
established originally as the New Thrusts Initiative (NTI) Office 
with the mission of accelerating the integration of certain high 
technology items into the Army. In FY85 the Technology Integration 
Office was developed as a follow-on and expansion of the New Thrusts 
Initiative Office with the function of shortening the acquisition 
cycle for all developmental products. Under this concept of 
operation, new items would remain in the tech base until matured, and 
would then be ready for a feasibility demonstration using regular 
Forces Command troop units. The TIO would be responsible for 
identifying the technologies and channeling them into feasibility 
demonstrations. The feasibility demonstration would take the place 
of the familiar but slower Development Test I and Operational Test I 
(DT/OT I) and skip the product forward into full-scale development as 
rapidly as practicable. A two-year transition from exploratory 
development to engineering development (i.e. 6.2 funding to 6.4 
funding) would be practicable by this approach. 



Development, Engineering and Acquisition (PEA) (U) 

The RDTE Execution Office (U) 

(U) The RDTE Execution Office managed DEA's responsibilities 
for expenditure of Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDTE) 
funds. The following chart displays the RDTE funds released, 
obligated, and disbursed by the MSCs in FY85. 



10 



11 
12 



For the concern about the IR&D program in FY84, see AMC AHR for 

FY84. For the IR&D program itself see AR 70-74, Research, 

Development and Acquisition: Independent Research and 

Development, 3 Dec 84. For the actions taken in FY85, see DCS 

for Technology Planning and Management Annual Historical Report 

submission for FY85. 

For the NTI program in FY84, see AMC AHR for FY84. 

Deputy Chief of Staff for Technology Planning and Management FY85 

AHR submission. The TIO functions described herein were rolled 

into the Laboratory Command's Advanced Systems Concept Office 

(ASCO) on creation of LABCOM at the beginning of FY86. 



131 







RDTE FUNDS, 


FY85 








Release 












Command 


Program 


($M) 


% Obligated 


% Disbursed 




AMCCOM 


557.9 




94.2 




47 




AVSCOM 


433.7 




93.3 




41 




TROSCOM 


144.4 




98.7 




68 




ERADCOM 


479.9 




96.4 




46 




CECOM 


360.1 




99.1 




49 




MI COM 


388.1 




86.7 




43 




TACOM 


227.3 




81.8 




29 




TECOM 


403.0 




99.6 




75 




Other AMC 


536.7 




90.7 




54 




Total AMC 


3,531.1 




93.5 




50 




Source: DEA 


Historical 


Repoi 


rt, FY85. 









(U) The 93.5 percent obligation rate for AMC exceeded the DA 
goal of a 90 percent obligation rate for RDTE funds, and AMC's 50 
percent disbursement rate met the DA goal of 50 percent in this area. 
Most MSCs had met the 90 percent obligation goal, but only a few had 
disbursed at the 50 percent target rate; the much higher disbursement 
rates for TECOM and TROSCOM brought the disbursement average up to DA 
goals for the entire AMC. 

(U) The five-year projected RDTE Program showed the customary 
increases in the outyears, although the more recent projection of 
September 1985 indicated a somewhat flatter climb than the earlier, 
May projection: 



FY87-91 RDTE Program. 

Project Listing FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 

May 85 4,610,285 5,130,769 5,170,469 5,557,575 6,708,682 

Sep 85 4,886,912 5,309,658 5,227,396 5,537,842 6,238,467 

Source: DEA Historical Report, FY85 



132 



Acquisition Assessment and Policy Division (U) 

(U) Most of the major Initiatives to reform the acquisition 
system fell under the purview of the Acquisition Assessment and 
Policy Division, although in most instances there was considerable 
direct involvement by high levels of AMC and DOD management as well. 



13 



(U) AMC Streamlined Acquisition Process . One of the most 
significant of these innovations was the program started by General 
Thompson the previous year to shorten the acquisition cycle. This 
program, known as the AMC Streamlined Acquisition Process (ASAP), had 
the goal of reducing the acquisition cycle from program initiation to 
the signing of the production contract to four years for 
developmental items and two years for product improvements and 
nondevelopmental items (NDI) taken by the Army from commercial 
sources or from other military services, including foreign ones. 

(U) In a message to subordinate commanders in July 1985, 
HQ, AMC explained the current status and basic direction of the ASAP 
program. The program was a restructuring of the acquisition cycle 
that eliminated much of the concept exploration and demonstration- 
validation activities, as well as one formal milestone review. To be 
emphasized for new programs were mature, low-risk technologies and 
demonstration of concepts in the hands of troops prior to entry into 
full-scale development. The phases of the the "streamlined" 
acquisition model were: 

(a) Tech Base/Requirements. This phase called for a focus on 
mission area deficiencies from the tech base perspective, 
coordinating tech base efforts among labs, IR&D, foreign research, 
and RDE Centers, maturing promising technology and components, and 
identifying candidate projects for proof of principle. The 
laboratories were to have the lead in material development during 
this phase, and the amorphous nature of the process of matching tech 
base gains to product requirements made time constraints or goals 
inapplicable. 

(b) Proof of Principle. This phase, corresponding with the 
former advanced development phase, was to be led by the Research, 
Development and Engineering (RDE) Centers and was to take from one to 
two years. It included the development of brassboard prototypes 

and surrogates, component proveout, and troop demonstrations. The 
phase was designed to be applicable to both system and non-system 

For the DCS's involvement with specific weapon systems other than those 
discussed below, see the Force Modernization chapter. 



133 



concept demonstration, and removal of restrictions on use of 6.3A and 
6.3B funding was being sought for later years even as developers were 
being urged to cast their justifications for 6.3 funding in "vanilla" 
terms to achieve maximum flexibility. 

(c) Development/Production Prove-Out. This phase, to be led by 
PMs and RDE centers, was to take no more than four years. It 
involved full-scale development of the item, including hard-tooled 
prototypes and an initial production facility, and attention to 
producibility engineering. 

(d) Production and Deployment. This phase was to be led by the 
PMs and MSCs and was to take from 1.5 to 2.5 years through a low 
rate initial production (LRIP) to an economic rate production and 
product fielding. 

(U) In placing the streamlined acquisition model on a routine 
rather than an exception basis, the July message added the 
requirement of approval from the DCG for Research, Development, and 
Acquisition if a program required "advanced development" or a 
specific "6.3B" effort, and the approval of the Commanding General 
for new products structured other than by the streamlined model. 

(U) AMC's second message on shortening the acquisition process 
was sent to the commanders at the end of August, and addressed further 
specifics of implementation. It directed the commanders to prepare 
by September a list of all development programs which had been 
started or amended "during General Thompson's watch" — a streamlined 
model "candidate list" sorted by those which were, or would be, 
pursued fully in accord with the new streamlined policy, those that 
required only minor deviations from the model, those that were 
product improvement or NDI programs and would be following the 
streamline model, and finally those developmental and PIP/NDI 
programs which could not be tailored to fit together with a statement 
of the reasons why not. 

(U) Plans called for the list to be updated quarterly following 
initial production in September 1985. The updates were to provide 
progress or status annotation for use in "real world implementation 
activities" and would provide a basis for responding to inquiries 
from senior AMC/Army leadership. 



14 Msg (U), CDRUSAMC to AIGs 11604, 12296, 7546, Subj: Shortening the 
Acquisition Process — Message No. 1, 29 Jul 85. 



134 



(U) A second element of the quarterly report called for from 
the commanders related to a 15 May 1985 directive that applicability 
of certain streamlining steps taken by AMC and TRADOC in the chemical 
area be explored and reported for non-major systems. The chemical 
materiel initiatives were developed during FY84 and included such 
elements as generic requirements documents and expedited testing and 
evaluation with close coordination with a standing TRADOC board. 
What was to be further required was inclusion of this reporting 
requirement in the same document with the candidate list. A single 
streamlining advocate, Mr. Roy D. Green, DEA's Assistant Deputy Chief 
of Staff for Program Management, was given overwatch responsibility 
for the initiatives, his "action arm" being the Acquisition 
Assessment and Policy Division. 



(U) NDI/PIP . As part of the process of shortening the 
acquisition cycle, AMC was continuing to concentrate, particularly in 
the "low end of the acquisition spectrum," on non-developmental item 
(NDI) and product improvement proposals (PIP) whenever possible. 
Integration of such systems, if required to meet development needs, 
would be kept in low-risk areas, and future growth protential would 
be looked to through application of later— maturing technology by the 
Preplanned Product Improvement (PI) approach. 

(FOUO) Non-developmental Items . A Functional Process 
Assessment (FPA) of the the NDI acquisition program was completed in 
March 1985. This study validated the concept of completing an NDI 
acquisition within two years, but warned of increased risks if the 
commercial items were to be modified or if a number of commercial 
items were being assembled into a finished product. Industry 
representatives were also consulted on the NDI process to elicit 
suggestions for improvements. These suggestions, together with 44 
recommendations coming out of the 44 improvements recommended through 
the FPA were being studied so as to revise policies and procedures to 
further streamline the process. Key among the elements critical to 



For more background on these initiatives, see the AMC AHR for FY84. 
16 Msg (U), DCRUSAMC to AIGs 11604, 12296, 7546, Subj: Shortening the 
Acquisition Process — Message No. 2, 30 Aug 85. 
State of the US Army Materiel Command, 1985, p. 13. 



135 



successful NDI acquisitions were up front planning, the availability 
of funds, and the inclusion of Integrated Logistics Support in the 
source selection criteria. 

(FOUO) Use of the NDI process in FY85, spurred in part by 
updating of AMC Pam 70-7 to further establish the preference toward 
NDI as an acquisition strategy, included purchase of generator sets 
for Corps and Division headquarters to be used as part of power 
distribution systems built by Tooele Army Depot, the generators being 
mounted by Tobyhanna Army Depot in trailer configurations. A 
commercial tank decoy was located for purchase and use by USAREUR in 
FY86. Other significant NDI programs involved the lightweight 105mm 
howitzer, the 9ram pistol, and the multi-purpose bayonet. 9 

(U) The 9mm pistol was purchased as the result of a search for 
a new sidearm to replace the .45 caliber automatic handgun as the 
standard sidearm. Following an evaluation of eight candidates 
submitted by commercial firms, the 9mm Beretta, Model 92SB-F, was 
selected In January 1985 as the new sidearm. A five-year fixed price 
contract for 315,930 weapons was awarded on 10 April. The choice 
became a hotly contested issue. The General Accounting Office (GAO) 
received and dismissed challenges to the contract by Heckler Koch, 
Smith and Wesson, and Maremont Corp., but later, in October 1985, 
announced that it was opening an investigation into charges of 
impropriety in the selection that had been raised by Congressman Jack 
Brooks (D-Tex) . In addition, litigation over the contract award was 
still pending with Smith and Wesson and Maremont Corporation at the 
end of the year.^0 

(U) In addition, the Beretta model ran into difficulties with 
the First Article Test (FAT), being rejected because the weapon did 
not use NATO ammunition, did not meet the accuracy requirement, and 
had 12 components that failed to meet their dimensional 
requirements. Beretta stated that its quality assurance procedures 
would be revised, and resubmission of the FAT was scheduled for 
7 January 1985.21 



Ibid, p. 15. DCS for Supply, Maintenance and Transportation AHR 

submission FY85. 
19 State of the US Army Material Command , 1985, pp. 15-16. AMCDE FY85 AHR 

submission. 

DCS for Development, Engineering, and Acquisition, FY85 AHR submission. 
21 Ibid. 



136 



(U) Two types of ammunition for the pistol were evaluated and 
adapted. The first was the US Ball M882 cartridge, an adaptation of 
the basic commercial 9mm cartridge, and the second was a high 
pressure round to be used for weapon and test barrel proofing. Also 
evaluated and type classified were a hip holster and a magazine 
ammunition pocket. The shoulder holster used with the .45 caliber 
sidearm was to be retained and modified for the new weapon by soaking 
and stretching its pistol hold down strap to fit the Beretta. 

(U) The need for a multi-purpose bayonet had been identified in 
a briefing to the Undersecretary of the Army on 29 April 1985. 
Following a market survey that determined that there were 
off-the-shelf items that would satisfy this requirement, a Letter 
Requirement was approved on 9 December 1985 that identified the 
requirements of the Bayonet System, those being a bayonet suitable 
for close combat defense as well as various field tasks, a scabbard, 
and a quick release/attachment device. The go-ahead in process 
review (IPR) was scheduled for February 1986. 23 

(U) The L-119 was a towed British 105mm light howitzer that was 
being procured to equip the new American Light Divisions. In June 

1985, 14 of these were received in the United States for testing, and by 
August their Operational Test II had been completed successfully. The 
new howitzer was to use US 105mm ammunition and be towed by the HMMWV, 
uses proven during Operational Test 11.24 

(FOUO) Other NDI use of foreign military equipment for the 
light division included the acquisition of Canadian wheeled armored 
vehicles. German backhoes and motorcycles, and the French Lohr 
vehicle. 25 

(FOUO) The NDI process was also used to evaluate foreign 
military equipment for purposes other than equipping the light 
division. Several Israeli countermine systems were being procured 
and evaluated, including the Cleared Lane Marking System (CLMS), mine 
clearing plows for the M60 and Ml tanks, and the portable mine 
clearing line charge (POMINS). Significant use was being made of 
foreign equipment in the chemical defense arena. The United States was 
using or considering the use of German markers for contaminated areas, gas 



22 
23 
24 
25 



Ibid. 

Ibid. 

Weapon System Smart Sheets Data Base, L-119, 27 Jun 86. 

Ltr, General Thompson to General John A. Wickham, Jr., Subj: [Monthly 

letter], 4 Jun 85. 



137 



masks from several nations, British chemical overgarments and a 
chemical agent monitor, and elements of a German chemical defense 
reconnaissance vehicle. 

(FOUO) Product Improvement Programs . Similar command attention 
toward product improvement programs also provided FY85 dividends to 
full-scale development programs. Longstanding concern over separate 
stovepipes for materiel development and product improvement programs, 
in part a function of separate line item funding, led to integration 
efforts that included a short-lived elimination of the Product 
Improvement Program Branch office, which was disestablished on 1 July 
1985. Management of the PIP became decentralized with the weapon 
system support manager (WSSM)/PM/MSC chain again taking the lead and 
PIP's again being reviewed under normal budgetary review/decision 
procedures. 27 In the wake of the PIP Office disestablishment, the 
Program Integration Division continued to maintain an automated data 
base and to coordinate the third quarter PI Joint Review. 

(U) Although the PIP office was reestablished on 2 December — at 
the direction of the CG as the right formula for management of PIP 
and other materiel changes continued to be sought — it was brought 
back at less than half its former strength level, maintaining the 
direction taken away from the separate stovepipe for product 
improvements. Also in support of this initiative, in FY85 initial 
steps were being taken toward integration of the Product Improvement 
(PI) and Preplanned Product Improvement (PI) programs into the 
Mission Area Materiel Plan (MAMP) process. For FY86 this integration 
was to give broader visibility to product improvement programs, both 
PI and P J I, "in the context of our overall materiel initiative 
planning and prioritizing." Although AMC and TRADOC had completed a 
VCSA tasking to develop PIP/ECP funding laydown priorities 
separately, it was considered that these materiel change programs 
would best be looked at in the context of the overall materiel 
acquisition program. An issue at the end of FY85 carrying over into 
the following year, was whether, given prior inconsistent reporting 
of ECP funds and the large dollar figure distributed through many 



26 
27 



28 



Ibid. 

State of the US Army Materiel Command , 1985, p. 16. Point paper, 

AMCDE-PIP, Subj : Establishment of PIP Office/ PIP Update to VCSA, 

27 Nov 85. 

AMCDE FY85 AHR submission. 



138 



small pots, HQDA would assume control and release of ECP funds. These 
Issues were to have an Impact in the following year on the mission of 
the PIP Office. 29 

(FOUO) Examples of Product Improvements can be found in the 
M60A3 combat vehicle and the UH-1 helicopter. In the M60A3 an 
improved Automatic Fire Extinguishing System (AFES) conversion kit 
was used to replace an older system. The AFES gave the M60A3 an 
automatic two discharge capability in the crew compartment as well as 
one in the engine compartment. In another effort to improve the fire 
survivability of existing tracked vehicles, AMC established a Tracked 
Vehicle Survivability Blue Ribbon Panel which was "to review tracked 
vehicle fire records, operational requirements and test procedures 
and results and to make recommendations that would improve tracked 

on r 

vehicle fire survivability. 

(FOUO) The UH-1 helicopter had a number of ongoing product 
Improvement programs. Bell Helicopter Textron and Boeing Vertol were 
developing a composite main rotor blade (CMRB); two qualified sources 
would result from the leader-follower development concept being 
followed on the CMRB. Bell Helicopter Textron was also developing a 
hub spring which would inhibit mast-to-hub contact when the 
helicopter exceeded the flight envelope. An oil debris and 
discrimination system project was on target for contract execution in 
the first quarter of FY86. The UH-1 Night Fix Program was about to 
enter the application phase following procurement of the kit in the 
final quarter of FY85; some 300 kits were to be delivered each month 
beginning in the second quarter of FY86. 

(U) The first quarter DA Product Improvement Joint Review was 
held on 25-29 March 1985 and reviewed a total of 820 proposed PIPs. 
Of these, 493 were approved, 228 conditionally approved, 35 
cancelled, eight disapproved, 14 deferred, and 25 reported as 
completed. The third quarter review was postponed until early FY86 
because of the the disestablishment of the AMC PIP office. 2 

(U) Materiel Change Management Task Force . In August 1985, the 
CSA directed AMC to work with TRADOC and the DA staff to develop a 
comprehensive process for the management of materiel changes. In 



29 



30 
31 
32 



State of the US Army Materiel Command , 1985, p. 16. AMCDE FY85 AHR 

submission. Point Paper, AMCDE-PIP, Subj: Establishment of PIP 

Office/ PIP Update to VCSA, 27 Nov 85. 

Ibid, p. 17 (State of AMC '85) 

Ibid. 

AMCDE AHR submission FY85. 



139 



September 1985 the AMC Commander established a Materiel Change 
Management Task Force, with members of all three organizations to 
study the materiel change process including the management of PIPs, 
Modification Work Orders (MWO), and Engineering Change Proposals 
(ECP). 33 

(U) Materiel Acquisition Review Board . Established by HQ, AMC 
at the very end of FY84 to improve the acquisition process, the 
Materiel Acquisition Review Board (MARB) gave high-level attention to 
getting materiel development projects off to good starts. In a 
5 September 1984 letter announcing the new Board, LTG Moore stated such 
attention was needed during creation of the requirements document and 
the acquisition strategy for a program. These two sets of documents 
were described as "two of the most important products of the Concept 
Exploration Phase." The requirements document served as a "contract" 
with the user representative and the acquisition strategy was to be 
AMC's "roadmap" for accomplishing the contract. As a result and at 
the request of the CG, LTG Moore stated he was establishing the MARB 
to provide the necessary attention to these and other comparable 
documents, such as PIPs and requests for proposals, on all System 
Acquisition Review Council (SARC) programs. The board was to be 
staffed by "our most experienced functionals experts (preferably 
Deputy or Assistant Deputy Chiefs of Staff)" from Supply, 
Maintenance, and Transportation, Procurement and Production, 
Resources Management, Product Assurance and Testing, Manufacturing 
Technology, Readiness, and the Command Counsel — and the DCS for 
Development, Engineering, and Acquisition would serve as chairman. 
Other representation would include the Weapon System Staff Manager 
(WSSM), the Department of Army System Coordinator, and TRADOC's DCS 
for Combat Development, although other functional areas should be 
brought in as needed, LTG Moore declared. Similar GO/SES-level 
Senior Level Review Boards (SLRB) were established at the MSCs, 
stemming from a 29 May 1984 tasking from LTG Moore. 

(FOUO) During FY85 the SARB has reviewed, revised, and 
ultimately approved draft requirements documents, System Concept 
Papers and Decision Coordinating Papers (including the acquisition 



AMCDE FY85 AHR submission. 
34 Memorandum, LTG Moore, Subj: Establishment of HQ, AMC Materiel 
Acquisition Review Board (MARB), 5 Sep 84. 

Ltr, LTG Robert L. Moore, Subj: [Senior Level Review Boards], 29 May 
1984. AMCDE FY85 AHR submission. 



140 



plans and RFPs for all SARC programs, selected DA in-process reviews 
(IPR), and IPR level programs). Good success was achieved through 
reduction of over-specification 

(U) Standards Proliferation . An aspect of the effort toward 
streamlining the acquisition system was the struggle to avoid 
overspecif icity in contracts. Already a concern of some standing 
with AMC, the Deputy Secretary of Defense issued a directive giving 
top level guidance. Interim guidance offered by DSD and furnished 
to subordinate commands with a letter conveying the CGs own strong 
endorsement, charged that developmental stage contracts should 
"specify system-level requirements in mission performance terms" and 
that prior to full-scale development, military standards should be 
cited for guidance only. In full-scale development contracts, only 
"first tier" standards, those specifically cited in the contracts and 
in specifically referenced sections of referenced documents should 
have contractual applicability, while standards in generally 
referenced documents and other indirectly referenced documents would 
exist as guidance only. In procurement and reprocurement contracts, 
standards "to whatever tier was identified as the baseline for 
production shall be considered contractual requirements," 
necessitating care that only essential requirements be carried 
forward to any follow-on contract. 

(U) To help implement this policy, contractors were to be 
required to make recommendations for application and tailoring of 
contract requirements in one phase, for proposed application to the 

next succeeding phase. With progress through demonstration/validation 
and full-scale development, additional lower- tier specifications and 
standards would normally be selected and tailored for the next phase. 
All requirements related to design, development, and manufacturing 
were to be identified and confirmed by the time of the critical design 
review. 38 

(U) This policy was to apply to all development contracts 
issued after 30 September 1985 and to those systems already 
identified for acquisition streamlining, which included AMC's 
programs for a Light Helicopter Experimental (LHX), Advanced 
Anti-Tank Weapon System, Joint Tactical Missile System, family of 
Medium Tactical Vehicles, and Armored Gun System. 



^ DOD Directive 4120.21. 

Ltr, GEN Thompson to MG Henry H. Harper, 22 Aug 85, and enclosed memo, 

William H. Taft, IV, Subj: Acqusition Streamlining, 3 Jun 85. 

Ibid. 

Ibid. 



38 
39 



141 



(U) Design to Cost . In the Design to Cost program, estimated 
costs both for average units of equipment and for their operation and 
support costs were established at the entrance into full-scale 
engineering development. These DTC estimates were used as goals to 
guide the developers and to insure that cost was given the same 
emphasis as technical requirements and performance goals in the 
development of the equipment. 

(U) In mid-year, proponency for the DTC program was given to DEA 
and a dedicated DTC position created. All the MSCs were directed to 
establish similar DTC proponency offices and to establish boards that 
would review and approve baseline DTC goals both for Design to Unit 
Production Cost (DTUPC) and Design to Operating and Support Cost 
(DTOSC). These DTC goals, one an "average" manufacturing cost and 
the other a utilization cost, were to be established "at the earliest 
practical date"— preferentially on demonstration and validation but 
certainly no later than final commitment to full-scale production. 

(U) Although AMC did not consider all programs appropriate for 
DTC programs, DA required programs exceeding $10 million to have DTC 
programs. AMC requested that this floor be raised to $40 million on 
the argument the program was not cost effective below that threshold. 
The change was adopted and the regulation amended. 

(U) Elements of the revitalized AMC program was a carrot and 
stick approach toward contractors. Thus, clauses were encouraged 
affording substantial monetary rewards for attainment of DTUPC goals 
and penalties for failure. AMC also established detailed provisions 
for tracking and reporting the contractor's effectiveness in meeting 
these goals. In addition, the AMC DTC regulation was updated; a 
DTC workshop was held at HQ, AMC, and a DTC course was being 
planned. 



(U) Affordable Acquisition Approach . The Acquisition 
Assessment and Policy Division directed the Army A study (Affordable 
Acquisition Approach) that examined commodity areas to isolate 
recurring "high drivers"— those situations, elements, or practices 
contributing to costly weapon systems acquisitions. It developed 



40 
41 

42 
43 
44 



AR 70-64, Research and Development: Design to Cost. 

Ltr, GEN Thompson to MG Orlando E. Gonzales, Subj: Design To Cost 

Program, 22 Mar 85, and attached DTC Management Guidelines. 

Ibid. 

Ibid. 

AMCDE FY85 AHR submission. 



142 



recommendations to preclude repetition in future acquisition 
programs, briefing the results to the Commander, to CG, TRADOC, to 
MSC Commanders and PMs, and to DCSRDA. 

(U) Other Accomplishments . The Acquisition Assessment and 
Policy Division was involved in a variety of other actions. The 
MANPRINT program continued to be worked and 93 percent of the actions 
included in the MANPRINT Master Action Plan to institutionalize the 
use of MANPRINT in the Army were completed. A Free Turn-In Program 
offered MSCs and PMs the opportunity to "turn in" problems that 
encumbered program progress. These problems were then assessed by 
HQ, AMC and fixes identified without retribution to the program 
developers. The Vulnerability Assessment programs at the MSCs 
were, at the direction of the CG, institutionalized. The office 
started to assess the value of obtaining engineering analysis 
performed by contractors for use In government decision making. It 
also conducted an assessment of the Army Systems Acquisition Review 
Council (ASARC) preparation procedures and, together with TRADOC and 
the US Army Operational Test and Evaluation Agency (OTEA), developed 
a plan to improve the pre-ASARC process. It started implementation 
of the Atlanta X conference recommendations to involve industry in 
the development and revision of Army acquisition policy documents, 
bringing industry into the loop when NDI program regulations were 
amended. It revised AR 70-61 on type classification to reflect the 
policy that type classification is an integral part of the 
acquisition process. 

Automation Information Division (U) 

(U) Word was received from HQDA that the Modernized Army 
Research and Development Information System (MARDIS) was to be 
eliminated as HQDA's RDTE data collection system unless one or more 
MACOMs had compelling reasons why it should be continued. AMC's 
response undertaken by the Automation Information Division of DCS for 
DEA was to continue its summer updating of MARDIS in order to 
continue collecting data that TECOM and parts of AMC headquarters 
obtained through MARDIS. At the same time a review was underway to 



45 
46 

47 



48 



AMCDE FY85 AHR submission. 

Ibid. For more on MANPRINT, see the Materiel Acquisition Chapter in 

the AMC AHR for FY84. 

Ibid. The program thus had similarities to the effort of the PM Office 

in FY84 to provide confidential assistance to PMs in remedying program 

problems, see the AMC AHR for FY84. 

Ibid. 



143 



determine how to put the required MARDIS data elements, such as its 
manpower portion, into a UNIX/INFORMIX environment so that they wou! 
be compatible with the AMC Annual Review RDTE data system. 



(U) The Automation Information Division developed a class III 
automated information system to support DEA. Approval for the $3.9 
million system came from DA within six months and was the first such 
approval obtained by AMC. A PYRAMID 90X minicomputer was the 
principle hardware purchase for a system that supported DEA as well 
as a number of other AMC offices and organizations through memorandums 
of agreement. These additional users included DCS Chemical and 
Nuclear Matters, DCS for International Programs, and the DCG for RDA. 
Support was also furnished the US Army Standardization Groups in 
England, France, Germany, Australia, and Canada and to the US Army 
Board Representative to NATO in Brussels. Computer usage (disk 
space) was provided to the US Army Missile Command for developing the 
Test Incident Reporting System (TIRS), a system updated by the PMs 
and available to all users of the system. 

(U) DEA personnel developed data bases in support of the Weapon 
System Smart Sheets, Program Analysis Tracking System (PATS), Request 
for Proposal Question/Answer System, RDTE data element dictionary, 
and an AMC organizational chart. Applications programs gave support 
for such administrative tools as suspense systems, duty status 
rosters, message forms, daily and monthly calendars. Anticipated 
benefits from use of the system had not been achieved, however, as 
lack of trained personnel in programming and data base development 
resulted in loss of time in accomplishing assigned tasks. Also, 
supporting activities in headquarters lacked familiarity with 
procurement procedures, resulting in equipment acquisition delays and 
shortage of funds. Efforts were underway to upgrade the system 
through addition of more memory, terminals, and printers, as well as 
development of software. 

(U) The division was also the functional proponent for the 
Product Improvement Management Reporting System (PRIMIS). The 
functional description of the proposed system was completed, 
including development of a data dictionary, and work was continuing 
through the end of FY85 on completion of the requirements document. 
The question whether a contractor should be obtained to speed 
implementation of PRIMIS was under study. 

49 Ibid. 

50 Ibid. 

51 Ibid. 



144 



(U) The Materiel Status Office (MSO) and the division were 
working toward a data base that would enable the MSO to track the 
life cycle history of decisions and key milestones associated with 
an item of equipment. The data base would house decisions and 
actions submitted on Materiel Status Record (MSR) submissions and 
would be addressable by keyword identifiers and key numbers (line 
item, national stock, or project/task numbers). 

(U) The division was the responsible office of contact for 
staffing materiel requirements documents and in-process review 
packages within AMC. During FY85 approximately 120 requirements 
documents and 75 IPR packages were received for appropriate 
processing. The division also performed internal control functions 
such as tasking divisions within DCS/DEA to perform biennial 
Vulnerability Assessments and preparing a semi-annual internal 
control status report. 

Space Division (U) 

(U) DEA's Space Division was established in June 1985 with the 
mission of managing the formulation, justification, analysis, defense 
and execution of DEA's space-related programs and activities. It 
served as the primary focal point for the USA Strategic Defense 
Command (SDC), the Strategic Defense Initiatives Office (SDIO), and 
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) on matters 
relating to "ballistic missile defense systems, directed energy, 
particle beams, propulsion systems, electromagnetic gun launchers, 
and other space-related technology matters." The Space Division was 
also the focal point for space activities for DA, TRADOC, the Corps 
of Engineers, and The Surgeon General and served as the point of 
interface between the Army Staff and MACOMs on space technology 
systems requirements. It became a working member of the HQDA Army 
Space Working Group which supports the Army Space Council, to which 
an AMC general officer is a representative. 

(U) Steps taken by the new division following its formation 
included: 

* Establishment of a Space Technology Working Group; 

* Review of industry space applications to identify those of 
potential value to the Army; 




145 



* Coordination and liaison with industry, Air Force, Navy, 
and National Air and Space Administration to develop Army's data base 
of exploitable space—related technologies; 

* Review of SDC space-related technology efforts (ballistic 
missile defense, kinetic energy weapons, surveillance acquisition 
tracking and kill assessment, systems analysis and battle management, 
and the Kwajalein Missile Range) and laydown of those efforts versus 
other ongoing Army (AMC, COE, OTSG) space-related efforts; 

* Entering a memorandum of understanding between AMC and SDC 
in August covering a variety of topics; 

* Participation in Army Space Inititives Study Group charged 
with developing an Army Space Master Plan; and 

* Participation in ballistic missile defense (BMD) Reponse 
Options Study including Army reorganization for Strategic Defense and 
Space Commands. 

* Establishment of space technology as a program element in 
the AMC budget. 55 

Operations and Support Division (U) 

(U) As Army's proponent for the research and development 
functional area (FA51) of the Officer Personnel Management System, 
the Operations and Support Division of DEA rewrote the commissioned 
officer coding guidelines for research development (51) and test and 
evaluation (51B) areas of concentration. This was done as part of a 
CSA Army directive that a line by line review of all Army TDA 
positions be undertaken to identify correctly the experience and 
background needed by an officer to fill those positions. The coding 
guidance was thereafter to be used by MACOMs and staff agencies for 
the line-by-line review, and in AMC the division participated in the 
actual review. The division also rewrote chapter 51 of DA Pam 600-3, 
"Commissioned Officer Professional Development and utilization." 
And in cooperation with the HQDA Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff 
for Operations, the division developed a training program for FA51 
comrassioned officers at the United Kingdom's Royal Military College 
of Science. 56 

Program Integration Division (U) 

(U) In FY85 DEAs Program Integration Division had two branches, 
the Program Integration Branch and the Product Improvement Branch. 
The latter, as noted above, being disestablished in July to leave PIP 
without an organizational focus. Its generalized function was to 

jf Ibid. 

56 Ibid. 



146 



provide for coordination and integration of those disciplines 
necessary to the development and acquisition function- — materiel 
acquisition management, manpower management, automated information 
reporting, and planning, programming, budgeting and execution of 
resources. Specifically managed through it, besides PIP, were the 
Program Management Control System (PMCS), Selected Acquisition 
Reports (SAR), Unit Cost Reports (UCR), Defense Acquisition Executive 
Summary (DAES) and Program Status Reports (PSR). The division had 
major responsibilities in manpower planning and equipment upgrade and 
improvement. 

(U) Program Management Control System . The PMCS was in its 
fifth year of implementation and improvement. It was a tracking 
system for selected weapon systems that allowed a careful audit to be 
kept on such matters as milestones and cost. In FY85 36 systems were 
under PMCS tracking, 35 of them AMC's and the 36th, the All Source 
Analysis System (ASAS), a HQDA DCSOPS-managed system. In the course 
of the year and at the direction of General Thurman, the VSCA, DEA 
was rewriting its circular on the PMCS as a draft Army Regulation. 
The regulation (AR 1000-XX) was expected to be made final by 
mid- 1986. 58 

(U) Selected Acquisition Reports . Congressionally-mandated 
quarterly reports on materiel programs-— SARs- — numbered 23 at the 
beginning of the year and 22 at the close. Perturbations experienced 
in the reporting over the year reflected concern not only over 
particular programs, but over the content of the reports. 

(U) Four systems were added to the reporting list beginning 
with 30 September 1984. These were the ASAS, the Army Tactical 
Missile System (ATACS), Multiple Launch Rocket System Terminal 
Guidance Warhead (TGW-MLRS), and Short Range Air Defense Command and 
Control (SHORAD C 2 ). The House and Senate Armed Services Committees 
ordered five more Army systems to be reported as of the end of the 
first quarter FY85. These were the AH-1S and UH-1 helicopters, the 
Chapparal, the Mobile Protected Gun System (MPG-S), and the M-60 tank 
series. However, the SARs prepared on these and furnished to HQDA 
were withdrawn on the decision of the Undersecretary of the Army and 
the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Comptroller). 



58 Ibid " 

59 Ibid ' 
3 * Ibid. 



147 



(U) The OASD(C) issued DOD Instruction 7000.3 on 27 December 
1984 directing a reduced SAR for the first quarter FY85 report 
(31 December 1984) in reliance on the FY85 DOD Authorization Act 
provision allowing submission of quarterly SARs only when a 
significant cost change (plus or minus 5 percent in total program 
acquisition costs) or a 90-day slip in a major program schedule 
milestone has occurred. The House and Senate Committees on the Armed 
Services (HASC/SASC) expressed their dissatisfaction with the reduced 
first quarter SARs. They called for extensive additional information 
not included in the first quarter reports. Then, in the FY86 DOD 
Authorization Act, Congress directed the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense (OSD) to restore the scope of SARs to that of SARs for the 
first quarter FY84 and in addition to report production rate and 
operating and support (0&S) cost data. The 0&S data was to include 
that of any antecedent systems and was also to include an analysis of 
the current and previous systems. The amended instructions were the 
fourth set of revisions in as many years received prior to the first 
quarter SAR submission. 

(U) Two systems withdrawn from SAR reporting during FY85 were 
the Sergeant York program (DIVAD - Division Air Defense) and the 
AN/TTC-39. The final report on DIVAD, prepared 30 September 1985, 
noted the decision of the Secretary of Defense that the program be 
cancelled effective 23 August 1985. The 31 December 1984 AN/TTC-39 
report reflected completion of the program and transfer of its 
remaining funds to the Mobile Subscriber Equipment (MSE) program. 1 

(U) Unit Cost Reports . During FY85 only two SAR-reporting 
systems were in breach of the 15 and 25 percent unit cost thresholds 
of the Nunn-McCurdy Amendment (FL97-252). Termination of the 
AN/TTC-39 and Sergeant York programs resulted in their being reported 
in technical violation of established Program Acquisition Unit Cost 
(PAUC) baselines by the 25 percent breach level threshhold. 2 

(U) One change was made in the reporting dates for the UCRs by 
Congress in the DOD FY85 Appropriation Act. The due day for submission to 
Congress of the UCR for the first quarter of the fiscal year, effective 31 
December 1984, was changed from seven days after the end of the fiscal 
year to seven days after the President submits his budget to Congress. 



60 
61 
62 



Ibid. 
Ibid. 
Ibid. 



148 



This allowed the UCRs to reflect the cost data in the President's 
budget and in the SAR rather than having it rely upon preliminary 
data that might be changed in the actual budget submission. 



(U) Defense Acquisition Executive Summary (DAES) Reports . The 
means inaugurated in March 1984 to keep DOD managers advised of 
progress on major weapon systems, AMC was reporting on 24 weapon 
systems in FY85. Each report summarizes events and status in seven 
areas: program funding, contract cost, completion schedules, 
production delivery schedules, program and contract milestones, and 
overall assessment of the project manager. An Office of the 
Secretary of Defense automation effort for the DAES— AUTO DAES— was 
tested with the Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System 
(SINCGARS), Pershing II, and Army Helicopter Improvement Program 
(AHIP) programs and implemented thereafter for all full format DAES 
reporting for the September 1985 requirement. 

(U) Program Status Reports . A change from a monthly to a 
quarterly reporting cycle on certain developmental programs resulted 
in a change of name for Monthly Status Reports that AMC had been 
furnishing HQDA since May 1982 as a part of the PMCS system. With 
the September 1985 reports, the otherwise unchanged format became the 
Program Status Reports (PSR). As of that date 37 systems were 
reported — 11 on a monthly basis, 15 quarterly, and 11 on an 
exceptional basis. 



63 

64 



65 
66 



Ibid. 

Full format reporting occurred for Apache, Automated Digital Data 
System (ADDS), Army Helicopter Improvement Program (AHIP), Hellfire 
Modular Missile System, Joint Tactical Information Distribution System 
(JTIDS), Patriot Air Defense System, Remotely Piloted Vehicle (RPV), 
Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System (SINCGARS), Stinger, 
SHORAD C 2 , and MLRS-TGW. Partial reporting on program funding and 
milestones were required for the Ml Abrams tank, Bradley Fighting 
Vehicle System (BFVS), Black Hawk UH-60 helicopter, M712 Copperhead, 
CH-47D helicopter, Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS), Pershing II 
(PII), Tube Launched Optically Tracked Wire Guided missile (T0W2), 
ASAS, and ATACMS. Three more systems were to be reported on in FY86: 
the Anti-Tacktical Missile (ATM), Mobile Subscriber Equipment (MSE), 
and Light Helicopter Experimental (LHX). 

Ibid. See below in this section for summary FY85 automation efforts on 
this and other functional reports. 
Ibid. 



149 



(U) Acquisition Management and Reporting System (AMARS) . In 
the first quarter of FY85, HQ AMC undertook an effort to automate 
recurring functional reports, including SARs, UCRs, DAES Reports, and 
PMCS reports discussed above. The PMCS automation effort included 
the data portion of the Program Directive, known previously as the 
Program Directive Document (PDD), and the PSRs (previously MSRs). 
The system was being developed by Boeing Computer Services (BCS), 
which would also operate it on its timesharing network, "Copper 
Impact." AMARS, as the system was titled, aimed at near real time 
transmission of unclassified report data to HQDA and HQ AMC over 
existing telephone lines. 

(U) By the end of FY85, BCS had demonstrated a prototype of the 
SAR and had proven by field tests and training that the data could 
be transmitted and manipulated on the system by remote field users. 
The effort to automate the SAR, UCR, and DAES by the first quarter of 
FY86 was hampered by "continuing perturbations in the approved scope, 
content and format of each report," particularly the SAR. " 

(U) DA Long Range Research Development and Acquisition Plan 
(LRRDAP) . Together with TRADOC, the division identified and 
developed initiatives for DEA-managed systems as input to the DA 
LRRDAP. Relating to issues of prioritization, executability, and 
good business sense, the initiatives were developed to help decision 
makers ensure proper allocation of scarce resources and provide a 
balanced, executable program. 

(U) RAM-D O&S Cost Reduction Program . In FY85 the Program 
Integration Division led the AMC effort to cut operating and support 
costs in half by FY91 for selected weapon systems, a program known as 
the RAM-D O&S (Reliability, Availability, Maintainability, and 
Durability Operating and Support) Cost Reduction Program. Ten 
systems were in the program initially: Abrams tank, M-60 tank, 
Bradley Fighting Vehicle, Apache, Blackhawk, Cobra, CH47-D 
helicopter, Pershing II, Patriot, and MLRS. In early FY86, the DCS 
for Product Assurance and Testing took over the lead on the program 
to integrate it with the other elements of the RAM~D program. 



68 Ibld * 

69 Ibld ' 
™ Ibid. 

70 Ibid. 



IV) 



Logistics Research and Development (Log R&D) (U) 

(U) Although there had been a Logistics Research and 
Development program in existence for several years, 

institutionalization of its various aspects were still in a state of 
flux in FY85. Program goals were still those of developing concepts, 
procedures, techniques, and technological approaches to improve 
logistics support, but FY85 saw AMC coordinate a Log R&D 
Implementation Plan in October 1984 which was submitted to HQDA 
DCSLOG for approval. The plan "finalize [d] the responsibilities, 
procedures and structure necessary to track Log R&D projects and to 
determine the effectiveness and benefit to the Log R&D projects by 
comparing the resources spent versus the resources saved." 

(U) Also during FY85, TRADOC identified and prioritized 116 
initiatives in this area. During the FY87-91 spring review of 
research development, and acquisition, an analysis of how well Army's 
RDA program meets the 116 initiatives found that 75 were addressed in 
the FY85-89 program and 88 were addressed in the FY86-90 program, a 
gain of 11 percent. Logistics deficiencies were also identified at 
the November 1984 Combat Service Support Mission Area 
Analysis/Logistics R&D Conference held at the USA Logistics Center. 
Later, a January 1985 AMC-sponsored conference on the same subject 
suggested solutions. 

DEA's Office of the Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Special 
Operations Forces (U) 

(U) See the FY85 ADCS for Special Operations Forces FY85 AHR 
classified submission in the HQ AMC Historical Office archives. 



DCS for Chemical and Nuclear Matters (U) 

(U) For information concerning chemical and nuclear matters, 

see the DCS for Chemical and Nuclear Matters FY85 classified submission 
in the KQ AMC Historical Office archives. 



71 Ibid. 



151 



Product Assurance and Testing (DCSPA&T) (U) 

Engineering Division (U) 

(FOUO) Environmental Stress Screening (ESS) . FY85 saw action 
taken by AMC to mark the importance and increase the utilization of 
environmental stress screening (ESS) within AMC. ESS consisted of 
exposing equipment to various temperatures, shocks, vibrations etc., 
to expose latent defects that could otherwise surface during use in 
the field. On 19 November 1984, the CG, AMC issued a Commander's 
Guidance Statement on Environmental Stress Screening. The 
statement noted that as ESS "resulted in significant improvements in 
quality and reliability performance and reduction in manufacturing 
and support costs of weapon systems and equipment" AMC must include 
ESS "on all appropriate development, production, and spare parts 
procurement contracts and specifications" as well as in those depot 
rebuild programs where it might result in substantial savings. Two 
examples of ESS impact are found in the Bradley Fighting Vehicle TOW 
Subsystem (BFVS-TSS) and the Ml tank Thermal Imaging System/Laser 
Rangefinder (TIS/LRF). In the case of the BFVS-TSS the estimated 
cost of ESS was $233,000 while the cost avoidance was estimated in 
the range of $46.8 million for 1,200 systems. For the TIS/LRF, the 
cost avoidance was calculated at $23.2 million on an ESS expenditure 
of $261,000. 74 

(U) A number of actions were taken in FY85 to implement the 
Commander's policy statement. CEC0M was designated as AMCs ESS 
Center of Excellence. It, together with HQ, AMC's DCSPA&T and the 
other AMCs worked to disseminate ESS techniques and provide 
cross-fertilization of ESS experiences both in industry and in the 
Army. CEC0M held five ESS training seminars opened to personnel 
from all MSCs, which resulted in all of the MSCs developing an ESS 
cadre. These seminars were to become an ongoing program. In 
addition, at the request of DCSPA&T, the Army Management Engineering 
Training Agency (AMETA) modified its Reliability Engineering courses 
to include a block of instruction on ESS. 5 As a followup, the CG 



72 

73 
74 
75 



AMC Commander, CGS No. 50, Subj: Environmental Stress Screening (ESS), 

19 Nov 84, HQ, AMC. 

Ibid. 

State of the US Army Materiel Command , 1985, (FOUO), HQ, AMC. 

DCS for Product Assurance and Testing (AMCQA), FY85 AHR submission, HQ, 

AMC. 



152 



noted in his policy directive that he would call for ESS program 
briefings in his visits to the MSCs in the six months period 
following issuance of the statement. 

(U) DESCOM established a pilot depot overhaul program using ESS 
at Tobyhanna Army Depot using the overhaul program there for the 
AN/VRC 12 family of radios. 7 ' DCSPA&T developed and staffed a draft 
regulation on the AMC ESS program. Published 1 March 1986, the 
regulation mandated ESS for new equipment programs having anticipated 
contract value of $10 million or more but conditioned ESS on a 
determination of whether it would be economically advantageous to the 
government when reprocurements, procurement of spare parts, and depot 
overhauls were involved. Some equipment, such as cathode ray tubes, 
that would be subject to damage during ESS even if manufactured 
properly, could be excluded from the program. '° 

(U) RAM-D . Steps were taken in FY85 to control operating and 
support (O&S) costs that were driven by Reliability, Availability, 
Maintainability, and Durability (RAM-D) difficulties. The strategy 
developed identified specific RAM Improvement of Selected Equipment (RISE) 
projects, 11 in all, with the aim of achieving a 50 percent reduction in 
RAM-D support costs and a a comparable reduction in Not-Operationally 
Ready rates by FY91. New methodologies were developed drawing on 
peacetime aviation sample data collection. The primary thrust of 
these methodologies was to measure relative differences between 
peacetime and combat use, considering severity of the malfunction and 
its impact on the mission, to better predict combat mission 
reliability and operational availability. 9 

(U) The DCS for Product Assurance and Testing, with assistance 
from TRADOC, developed changes to AR 702-3, the Army RAM policy, that 
would provide guidance for developing RAM requirements. The revision 
to the AR was expected to issue in the second quarter of FY86. 



76 
77 
78 

79 

80 



AMC Commander, CGS No. 50, Subj: Environmental Stress Screening (ESS), 

19 Nov 84, HQ, AMC. 

DCS for Product Assurance and Testing (AMCQA), FY85 AHR submission, HQ, 

AMC. 

AMC-R 702-25, Product Assurance: AMC Environmental Stress Screening 

Program, 1 Mar 86. 

State of the US Army Materiel Command , 1985, (FOUO), HQ, AMC. 

DCS for Product Assurance and Testing (AMCQA), FY85 AHR submission, HQ, 

AMC. 



153 



(U) Aircraft Corrosion Control Program . Following through on a 
tasking of HQDA of 23 October 1983, AMC had drafted and staffed an 
implementing regulation on aircraft corrosion prevention and control. 
Coordinated with other Army agencies, the regulation was due to be 
forwarded to the Adjutant General for review and publication. 

(U) Root Cause Analysis . Root cause analysis was a structured, 

formal approach to analyzing the causes of failure in equipment that 

had been well tested beginning with its first use in the Lance 

program in the 1970's. It employed logic diagrams, interdisciplinary 

teams, and innovative idea generation methods and could be used 

effectively where other approaches failed to determine the cause of a 

failure and the corrective action needed; in the 105 times it was 

used during 1970*8 at AMCCOM or MICOM, it was successful on all but 

82 
two occasions. 

(U) In FY85, AMCCOM was designated a "center of excellence" 
for root cause analysis, and with assistance from certain other MSCs 
and the DCS for Product Assurance and Testing began to spread its use 
throughout AMC. Three training sessions were held during 1985, the 
first at TACOM from 22-24 July, the second at HQ, AMC from 22 to 24 
October, and the third at Corpus Christi Army Depot from 3 to 5 
December. The trainees were expected to lead root cause analysis 
teams that could tackle problems within the MSCs or with 
contractors. 

(U) Software Quality Assurance . In October 1984, a directive 
mandated that MSCs address software quality as a major consideration 
during all phases of the acquisition life cycle for a weapon system. 
The policy required MIL-S-52779 and DOD-STD-1679 be used in 
applicable contracts to insure software quality. In January 1985 
MSCs were provided a draft pamphlet, AMC-P 702-xx on Software Quality 
Requirements for Software Systems Development and Production, to use 
as an informal guide outlining tasks that the materiel developer 
could tailor to the specific SQA program in which he was involved. ^ 

(U) Specific programs used by the MSCs included AMCCOM using 
McCabe's Complexity Metric as a contractual requirement, AMCCOM automating 
the McCabe Metric for the ADA and FORTRAN computer languages, 
incorporating "test hooks" directives into the Howitzer Improvement 



81 
82 
83 
84 



Ibid. 

Ibid. State of the US Army Materiel Command , 1985, (F0U0), HQ, AMC. 

State of the US Army Materiel Command , 1985, (F0U0), HQ, AMC. 

DCS for Product Assurance and Testing (AMCQA), FY85 AHR submission, HQ, 

AMC. 



154 



Program (HIP), and adding a IV and V Contractor Access clause to 
development contracts. CECOM was active developing ADA computer language 
and devoloping the Technology for Automating and Generating Systems, while 
TECOM came up with the Test Item Simulator (TIS). 

(U) Critical Parts . As a result of helicopter accidents, AMC 
reviewed the quality assurance controls over critical parts, i.e., 
those items which could cause an unsafe condition if they failed to 
conform to design data or quality requirements. From 3 June to 23 
August 1985, an AMC review team visited the Corpus Christi Army Depot 
and several contractors — Sikorsky, Boeing, Bell, and Hughes — -to 
review the critical parts and quality control programs. The team 
found that the critical parts program was too limited in scope and 
usually did not extend past initial manufacture, while the quality 
control programs "showed a lack of adequately detailed procedures, 
process controls and vendor controls." Much of the initial 
corrective response to the specific problems in the aviation field 
disclosed by this review team was conducted by AVSCOM. They expanded 
and strengthened their critical parts program by drafting a revised 
Critical Parts Management Pamphlet on 6 August 1985, issued a command 
policy letter on it on 7 October 1985, and developed a draft field 
surveillance plan on 16 August 1985. In addition they continued the 
critical parts program reviews at other aviation contractors and 
conducted follow-up visits to verify that corrective actions had been 
taken. This problem also led AMC to take some across-the-board 
actions on the critical parts program. AMC drafted and sent to the 
MSCs on 1 August 1985 guidance on the critical parts program 
structure. Just after the close of the fiscal year on 15 October 
1985 they completed a draft regulation on that program that would 
apply to all commodity areas. 

(U) Standardization . The Quadripartite Working Group on 
Proofing, Inspection and Quality Assurance (QWG/PIQA) was to identify 
and recommend to the armies of America, Canada, Britain, and 
Australia (the ABCA nations) "means of establishing common or 
compatible proofing, inspection, and quality assurance procedures, 
techniques, terms, and definitions to enable ABCA Armies to recognize 
other's methods and responsibilities and to accept each other's 
standards." At the eleventh QWG/PIQA meeting on 18-26 March 1985, 99 



o c 

DCS Product Assurance and Testing (AMCQA), FY85 AHR submission, HQ 

86 AMC ' 
86 Ibid. 



155 



recommendations or tasks were made with a total of 232 scheduled 

raileston( 

the year 



milestones. Of these 61 or 26 percent were completed by the end of 



(U) A representative from the Engineering Division of the DCS 
for Product Assurance and Testing attended a meeting of the American 
National Standards Committee on Quality Assurance held in Washington 
DC on 20-21 March 1985. He represented tht Department of Defense and 
gave presentations on NATO and on military developments at the 
International Interface Subcommittee meetings. 

(U) The Joint Logistics Commanders Panel on Corrosion 
Prevention and Control recommended that the Joint Logistics 
Commanders establish a Corrosion Information Analysis Center (CIAC) 
to provide free services to DOD users at a cost of $100,000 per 
Service per year. The scope of work for the COIAC was given to the 
contracting officer at the Defense Electronic Contracting Center in 
Dayton, Ohio. The operation of the CIAC was to be an additional 
responsibility of the existing Metals and Ceramics Information 
Analysis Center (MCIC). The required funds were provided by the 
Services and MCIC was in the process of starting the CIAC. 

(U) Shortly after the end of the fiscal year the Deputy Chief 

of Staff for Product Assurance and Testing was appointed as Chairman 

of the NATO AC/250 Group of National Directors for Quality Assurance. 

This appointment was made at the 35th main group meeting, held at 

NATO Headquarters on 5 and 6 November 1985. At that meeting the main 

group also approved draft STANAG (International Military 

Standardization Agreement) 4174 "Allied Reliability and 

Maintainability Publications" and initiated the ratification process. 

In addition, ARMP-1 "NATO Requirements for Reliability and 

90 
Maintainability" had been approved and published by the main group. 

(U) NATO AC/250 Subgroup IX for Defense Equipment Reliability & 
Maintainability Assurance acted as a focal point for the exchange of 
information and experiences between various NATO nations on equipment 
availability, that is, on reliability and maintainability. The 
subgroup also assisted in "the establishment of rationalized common 
policies, procedures and methods in this field." At the subgroup's 
19th meeting held at NATO Headquarters from 11-13 December 1984, 
discussions were held on various ARMPs that were being developed. 



II Ibld * 
do Ibid ' 
11 Ibid - 
90 Ibid. 



156 



Work on other ARMPs had been delayed pending the completion of 
ARMP-2, "General Application Guidance on the use of ARMP-1." At the 
20th subgroup meeting held at NATO headquarters from 9-11 September 
1985, ARMP-2 was completed and forwarded to the main group. Work was 
also started on the development of ARMP-3, "Application of National 
R&M Documents, and on ARMP-5, 'Guidance on R&M Training." Work was 
also continued on ARMP-4, "Guidance for R&M Staff Target and 
Requirements Writers." 

Ammunition Surveillance Program (U) 

(U) Quality Assurance Specialist (Ammunition Surveillance) 
(QASAS) Career Program . QASAS personnel took positions throughout 
the world under a mandatory rotation system that was managed by AMC's 
Director of Product Assurance and Testing as part of his duties as 
Functional Chief Representative for this career field. During 1985 
the number of authorized spaces in this career field was increased 
from 602 to 644 but at the same time there was an increase in 
the number of vacant spaces, a problem that was addressed through 
more emphasis on recruitment and training. z 

(U) The Air Force created a QASAS position in the Air Staff 
during FY85 and it appeared likely that the Air Force would create a 
number of new QASAS positions. The Navy was evaluating the need for 
QASAS personnel at Navy Coastals and at other Naval installations, 
with the results of the study expected to be available in FY86. 

(U) Ammunition Stockpile Reliability Program (ASRP) . Improvements 
were made in a number of ASRP subprograms in FY85. Chief among these was 
the attention given to SB-742-1, the formal guidance given on ammunition 
inspection. The manual had presented both general and specific guidance 
in a single publication. Following study of the best means for submitting 
inspection criteria to the field, it was determined that the same format 
be kept, but with inclusion of specific technical information and guidance 
in appendices thereto. In execution of this approach, however, 
difficulties experienced in comprehending the text and its many 
cross-references prompted PA&T personnel to completely rewrite the manual, 
organizing into a new format with 12 chapters and appendices a-j. 
The entire process entailed total surveillance policy review, 
updating, comparison with related studies and reports, and refinement 



09 Ibld ' 
Q Z Ibid. 

93 Ibid. 



157 



to incorporate the latest technology and thinking. Support was given 
by members of AMCCOM, MICOM, DESCOM, US Army Defense Ammunition 
Center and School (USADACS), and HQ AMC over a two year period. 9 ^ 

(U) The manual was issued in draft form in May 1985, authorized 
for immediate use. Contained in the publication as appendix "j" (the 
other appendices being specific technical data by families or types 
of ammunition) were five Supplementary Ammunition Surveillance 
Inspection Procedures (SASIP), detailed checksheets to guide the 
QASAS personnel. Initial comments received from field users 
confirmed, however, that the new manual was vastly more useful than 
the prior. At the close of FY85, the manual was being revised for 
reissuance, still in draft form, to embody certain recommendations of 
the Hardin study that would significantly tighten parameters under 
which the QASAS could deviate from normal requirements. 
Additionally, further SASIP were in development, and the draft was 
submitted to editorial review prior to submission of a finalized 
document to the JAG for publication. 

(U) Also in FY85, AMCQA tasked USADACS to prepare a handbook to 
provide general guidance to QASAS on the scope of the Ammunition 
Surveillance program and where they could go for specific 
information. USADACS' first effort was a listing of frequently used 
reference material. It was asked to broaden the scope of their 
effort and Include general guidance information on each maior subject 
matter area in which QASAS may be required to perform. 

(U) A review of the formal Inspection of empty magazines found 
that the six-month inspection schedule could be expanded safely to 
anywhere from 14 to 28 months depending on local conditions. 
Numbered seals to prevent unauthorized reuse of empty magazines were 
approved as well. 

(U) Problems arose from use of the newly developed 4.2" M329A2 
mortar ammunition, and such use was suspended. The difficulty 
related to interference between the pre-engraved rotating band of the 
ammunition with the lands and grooves of the mortar tube. AMCCOM 
initially reported that the problem was caused by improper cleaning 
of the tubes, but "after several conflicting briefings and reports 



94 
95 
96 

97 
98 



Ibid. 

See below for explanation of the study. 

DCS Product Assurance and Testing (AMCQA), FY85 AHR submission, HQ 

AMC. 

Ibid. 

Ibid. 



158 



from AMCCOM/ARDC, and an observed reluctance by AMCCOM to suspend the 
involved ammunition, AMCQA (DCS for Product Assurance and Testing) 
directed AMCCOM to suspend all stocks of the M329A2 until all safety 
implications are resolved." A new obturator design that employed 
wire bristles to clean the mortar tube on each firing was developed 
and was being tested as possible solution. 

(U) Gas Mask Serviceability . Tests of gas masks, both stockpiled 
and in the hands of troops determined that serviceability levels were 
unsatisfactory. A special AMC program was initiated to inspect, screen, 
repair, or replace masks to bring the quality to the desired level, with 
AMCCOM implementing and completing the program in FY85 with a task force 
approach. The serviceability situation highlighted the need for a 
stockpile reliability program for chemical equipment similar to the one in 
effect for ammunition. At the direction of AMCQA, AMCCOM designed a 
program for surveillance of defensive chemical equipment. An Army 
Regulation was developed and issued to the field for immediate use 
while yet in draft form, while overall program policy was being 
incorporated into AR 702-6 with the Ammunition and Nuclear Weapons 
Stockpile Reliability Programs. 100 

(U) AMCCOM redesigned the M14 leakage tester for the M17 

series gas mask in order to mechanize the "flexing" portion of the 

test. This redesign not only improved repeatability by eliminating 

human variability and subjectivity, it also increased testing 

productivity by 25 to 50 percent or more. New indicator gauges with 

larger scale deflections were also installed on testers used by 

Johnson Island. The new gauges, which cut back further on the 

possibility of human read errors, were to be installed on all 

1 f)l 
remaining testers at surety sites by February 1986. 

(U) European Problems . Complaints from the Commander in Chief, 
US Army Europe (CINCUSAREUR) led to AMC investigation of new 
ammunition received in that command. It was found that the problems 
were primarily in the areas of packing and marking. An action plan 
to solve the problems was approved by the CG, AMC and was being 
implemented in FY85. Lessons learned were being furnished other 
MACOMs. 102 



?* Ibid. 
00 Ibid. 

ini Ibid ' 
102 Ibid. 



159 



(U) Ammunition Stockpile Rotation . At the tasking of HQDA 
DCSLOG, the DCS for Supply, Maintenance and Transportation (DCSSM) 
had USADACS study whether the practice of shipping ammunition from 
the production facility to the user was detrimental to ammunition 
readiness. USADACS found that the practice was detrimental, and the 
Commanding General, AMC asked the DCS for Product Assurance and 
Testing to discover how best to obtain prompt implementation of the 
study recommendations. As a result, AMCCOM was tasked to develop an 
implementation plan with milestones, which it did. Following review 
of the plan, proponency for the issue was returned to the DCSSM for 
implementation of a plan that projected cost savings as well as 
improved ammunition readiness. 

(U) Hardin Report . The Commanding General, AMC directed an 
independent review of munitions demilitarization and stockpile 
management be conducted by LTG Harold F. Hardin, US Army (Retired), 
using an AMC team. A member of the DCS for Product Assurance and 
Testing acted as the contracted officer's representative (COR) on the 
project. The first two phases of the review were substantially 
completed in FY85, covering approximately 40 installations. A 
4,800-page final report containing numerous and detailed suggestions 
for improving the program was issued, and AMCCOM was charged with 
taking the lead in developing and coordinating plans to implement the 
report recommendations. 

(U) Fasteners . In response to allegations that deficient 
fasteners were entering the Army stockpile, the IG investigated one 
such specific allegation at Rock Island Arsenal. The investigation 
determined that the fasteners were deficient. To determine if this 
was a reflection of a systemic problem, all MSCs and the Defense 
Industrial Supply Center were advised of the potential problem and 
asked to perform record reviews and physical tests as part of fact 
gathering to determine if a significant fastener problem existed. 
This was still in progress as FY85 ended, but preliminary results 
suggested that the problem was not significant. 

(U) Prepositioning Ship Munitions . During the CY84-85 
maintenance cycles on Lighter Aboard Ship (LASH) vessels and 
breakbulk ships, Army and Marine Corps ammunition was found to be 
deteriorated. This brought high-level concern as to the 
serviceability and combat readiness of there positioned stocks 
stored afloat. JCS tasked the Army, as Single Manager of 
Conventional Ammunition (SMCA), to assess the situation and prepare 
■iny notions needed to ensure lon 6 -terui serviceability and combat. 



103 
104 
105 



Ibid. 
Ibid. 
Ibid. 



160 



readiness of the munitions stocks. The DCS for Product Assurance 
and Testing in turn tasked AMCCOM to prepare an assessment plan to 
meet these requirements. By the end of FY85 it had been determined 
that while deteriorated the ammunition stocks were still combat 
ready. Actions were being taken to determine the cause of the 
deterioration. A report to the JCS on near-term readiness was 
scheduled by the end of January 1986. 

First Article Testing (U) 

(U) "Gutting" of the First Article Testing (FAT) program had 
occurred in a number of instances through government-approved delays 
in submitting the FAT reports, waivers of FAT results, and 
workarounds. As a result of this April 1985 determination, the DCS 
for Product Assurance and Testing was directed to prepare guidance 
and implementing instructions that would strengthen control of FAT 
management. 

(U) The DCS prepared a Commander's Guidance Statement (CGS) on FAT 
managent that was issued 12 October 1985, with implementing 
instructions to follow in 60 days. The CGS set forth the specific 
Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) authorized clause provisions 
for solicitations and contracts, calling for production quantities to 
come from the same facility as the first article whether the 
government or the contractor does first article testing and 
restricting use of alternative clause provisions permitting purchase 
of materiel before first article approval except on authorization by 
the Head of the Contracting Activity (HCA) and even then precluding 
production at other than a low rate until the FA testing is complete. 
It required that the failure of the FAT be followed by enforcement 
of all government rights, including charging the contractor for 
additional costs and holding the contractor to the original delivery 
schedule unless "valuable consideration" was received. In addition, 
the first article or articles should be retested if that be 
appropriate and consideration should be given to suspending or 
reducing progress payment. Other parts of the guidance statement 
addressed the need to provide the government with the contractual 
right to suspend or reduce progress payments if the first article or 
first article report is late or the FAT is failed as well as the 
right to exercise all contractual options after first article 



JS5 "id. 
107 Ibid. 



161 



approval. Moreover, the HCA was mandated to give full consideration 
to whether the contract he terminated for default due to lateness in 
providing FAs or FA reports. 

Model Plant Initiative (U) 

(U) During FY85 AMC undertook an initiative to improve the 
operational effectiveness of contractor-operated plants under Army 
cognizance. "Model" Army-cognizance plants were established under 
several MSCs at the Iowa Ammunition Plant, APRO Hughes Helicopter, 
Inc., and the Lima Army Tank Plant for the identification of strengths 
and weaknesses, the optimization of operational features, and the 
addition of innovations to procurement quality assurance programs. 
Eventually, these would be exported to other Army plants and 
eventually to the Defense Contract Administration Services. 

Quick Alert Team (U) 

(U) The AMC Quick Alert Team developed from a concept of a 
multi-disciplinary group drawn from the several DCS staffs capable of 
assembling quickly and giving timely analysis of situations "adversely 
impacting our acquisition process or the performance of Army materiel 
and equipment." Primary and alternate points of contact were 
established in the following functional areas: DCS for Procurement; 
DCS for Production; DCS, Engineer; DCS for Product Assurance and 
Testing; DCS for Readiness; DCS for Supply, Maintenance and 
Transportation; DCS for Development, Engineering, and Acquisition; 
the Command Counsel, and the Safety Office. 

(U) The team was expected to have an impact in FY86 and later 
years in providing immediate and accurate assessment of real, 
potential, or perceived problems. It would be ready to perform 
in-depth assessments of materiel-related problems arising in the 
field or at a contractor's facilities, and besides evaluating the 
validity and impact of a situation, would identify, intitiate and 
monitor effective corrective action. 



108 AMC Commander, CGS No. 104, Subj: First Article Testing (FAT), 



109 

110 

111 



12 Oct 85. 

DCS Product Assurance and Testing (AMCQA), FY85 AHR submission, 

HQ AMC. 

Ibid. 
Ibid. 



162 



Waivers and Deviations (U) 

(U) An action plan was developed in the final months of FY85 to 
obtain control of problems existing in the use of waivers and 
deviations from contract requirements. In June it was determined 
that adequate consideration was not being given to the validity of 
the requirements, that nonconforming materiel and equipment was being 
accepted in the interest of cost avoidance and in order to reflect 
timely delivery, and the control and reporting of waivers and 
deviations was not uniform. The task group assembled to address the 
problem determined that waivers and deviations served legitimate 
purposes but that tighter controls were needed to discipline the 
system. As a result a CGS was issued on the topic, requiring that 
the impact of a waiver or deviation be fully coordinated with 
appropriate technical representatives of such interested parties as 
the developer, tester, user, and logistician. Approval of waivers 
and deviations was elevated to the MSC command level. 

Unissuable Materiel Visibility Program (U) 

(U) Improvements were made in the Unissuable Materiel Visibility 
Program that augured significant long-term enhancement to the ability of 
the Command to avoid the waste of producing unissuable materiel. 
The DCG for Materiel Readiness had called for reduction by half in 
the amount of unissuables produced during CY85. The commodity 
commands developed plans to accomplish the objective, assisted by an 
AMC-wide meeting that clarified policy guidance, program scope, and 
the relationship of the program to the materiel management function. 
A revision of report criteria reduced the effort needed to generate 
reports and provided report detail sufficient to pinpoint problems as 
well as non-problem areas not requiring further upgrade. The higher 
visibility of the unissuable materiel problem achieved by the program 
was being institutionalized through a formal regulation. 

Kerwin Board II (U) 

(U) At the direction of the Commanding General a reconstituted 
Kerwin Board was given a second look at the Command's quality 
assurance efforts in its overall acquisition program. Headed by 
General Walter T. Kerwin, Jr., USA (Ret.), the earlier Kerwin Board 
was assembled in 1981 to examine the ammunition program in 
particular, but traced commodity quality problems in general back to 



112 
113 
114 



AMC Commander, CGS No. 100, 21 Sep 85, HQ AMC, 

Ibid. 

Ibid. 



163 



the interaction between the AMC and TRADOC when programs were being 
initiated. The agenda given the reconstituted board was to review 
"the doctrine, practices, and procedures employed across AMC and its 
weapon system contracts, relative to the overall effectiveness and 
adequacy of current programs to assure the production of only quality 
products during the acquisition process." It conducted its review, 
making 58 recommendations; in FY85 an action plan to implement these 
recommendations was being executed. 

Contractor Liability (U) 

(U) In FY84 AMC began a determined effort to hold contractors 
liable for defective equipment by applying warranties when they 
existed and by demanding voluntary repair or replacement of defective 
equipment at no cost to the Government in situations when warranties 
did not exist. In FY85 the program was well publicized and became 
strongly established, AMC recouping 79 percent of contractor-caused 
defective materiel at no additional cost to the Government. 

Army Warranty Program (U) 

(U) Major steps taken in FY85 implemented the congressional 
directive that warranties be obtained on nearly all acquisition items in a 
manner that imposed no additional recordkeeping or paperwork 
responsibilities on end users and intermediate and direct support 
levels. The program was woven into the equipment life cycle. In the 
planning stage the warranty was integrated into the acquisition strategy, 
the integrated logistics support plan, and the procurement plan. In the 
procurement phase, the selection criteria for warranty candidates was 
defined as was the standardized coverage. An important new feature added 
here was the concept of expected failure coverage. That is, the Army 
anticipated the number of failures that would occur and would budget for 
their repair using standard operations and maintenance funding (OMA). The 
warranty would come into use only for failures which exceeded the 
predicted amount. Advantages of this approach were that warranty cost was 
kept to the administrative cost associated with the program, and users 
could continue with their normal maintenance functions without 
feeling any impact from the warranty. 

See, Kerwin Board Report on Review of DARCOM Product Assurance Program, 

16 Aug 82, HQ DARCOM. 

DCS Product Assurance and Testing (AMCQA), FY85 AHR submission, HQ 

AMC. 

Ibid. See also, HQ AMC FY84 AHR. 

DCS Product Assurance and Testing (AMCQA), FY85 AHR submission, HQ 

AMC. 



116 

117 

118 



164 



(U) A draft model of the warranty cost-effectiveness program 
was developed and was refined by use by the MSCs during FY85 so that 
warranties would be applied only where they were cost effective. 9 

(U) Among efforts to simplify the field execution of the 
warranty by end users, MACOMs were required to submit individual 
claims only for intermediate-general support items. A passive system 
which used color striped labels and expiration dates showed which 
items had warranties without a paper check. A standard procedure 
established for presenting warranty claims used the form already in 
use for other maintenance requests. A warranty technical bulletin 
preparation guide was published as a Military Specif iciation to 
standardize the presentation of warranty data to the using/claiming 
level. The DA Pamphlet on Materiel Fielding, Release/Transfer was 
modified to include warranty information. An index of Army Warranty 
Control Officers/Coordinators and another index of all equipment 
covered by warranties were issued in microfiche form and were 
also to be published as hard copy appendices to the May 1986 
Maintenance Management Update publication. 

(U) AR 700-139, Army Warranty Program, was drafted and sent to 
The Adjutant General for publication. On 25 September 1985 AMC 
directed that in the interim prior to publication the draft AR 
be used by all AMC organizations. It too was to be published in the 
May 1986 Maintenance Management Update . 

(U) In the first quarter of FY86 AMC institutionalized its 
warranty organization with the creation in December 1985 of a 
Warranty Division as part of the DCS for Product Assurance and 
Testing. This office was also responsible to HQDA DCSLOG as the 
Executive Agent of the Army Warranty Program. 2Z 

System Evaluation and Test Division (U) 

Protection of Information . As the Army's executive agent for 
Range Signal Security (RSS), AMC obtained HQDA approval in July 1985 
for the Army RSS Implementation Plan. It covered protection of 
classified telemetry data at TRADOC, Ballistic Missile Defense 
Systems Command (BMDSCOM), and TACOM facilities. When AMC received 
DOD guidance that sensitive as well as classified data required 



119 
120 
121 
122 



Ibid. 
Ibid. 
Ibid. 
Ibid. 



165 



protection, such guidance was furnished all Army agencies with the 
request that they develop Secure Telemetry Implementation Plans 
(STIP) and forward them to AMC to support development of the Army 
Secure Telemetry Implementation Plan (ASTIP). The ASTIP was 
scheduled for completion in October 1986. 

DCS for Procurement (U) 

(U) The DCS for Procurement was part of the DCS for Procurement 
and Production at the beginning of FY85, before that element 
underwent two significant organizational changes. First, on 15 
15 October 1984, the Contract Management Division and 15 spaces of 
the forerunner DCS were reassigned to the DCS for Resources Management 
Then, on 1 July 1985, the DCS split into a DCS for Procurement and a 
DCS for Production. In the split, the DCS for Production took the 46 
spaces from the former Production and Industrial Preparedness 
Division and one space from the Plans and Administrative Office, and 
revamped as described in the following section. The DCS for 
Procurement thus had the following major functional areas within its 
control for the full year: competition advocacy, procurement policy 
and analysis, procurement management, and procurement career 
development . 

(U) The DCS for Procurement changed chiefs on 15 July 1985. 
BG Michael J. Pepe took over as DCS for Procurement from MG David W. 
Stallings. 124 

Competition Advocacy (U) 

(U) Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) and Other Directives . 
A number of significant legal changes in the area of competition 
changed the way AMC was doing business. It published a White Paper 
on Competition in May 1985 to inform all of its activities of these 
changes and to provide guidance. Part of the Deficit Reduction Act 
signed into law on 18 August 1984, the Competition Contracting Act of 
1984 (Public Law 98-369), became effective 1 April 1985. It 



123 



124 
125 



DCS for Procurement, FY85 AHR submission, HQ, AMC. For DCS Procurement 

Involvment with specific weapon systems, see the Force Modernization 

chapter. 

Ibid. 

AMC White Paper, Competition, May 1985, p. 5. 



166 



represented in the opinion of some "the most significant piece of 
congressional legislation affecting the military departments since 
the enactment of the Armed Services Procurement Act of 1947. z& 

(U) The new statute changed the basic thrust of competition 
from a results-oriented "effective competition" standard to a 
standard of "full and open competition." Competition advocates in 
the several services and major subordinate commands were 
established to press for this ideal, that every responsible source be 
permitted to compete. Procedurally, CICA established seven possible 
exceptions to full and open competition and set a series of approval 
threshholds for any acquisition that was not full and open 
competition. Thus, the Contracting Activity Special Competition 
Advocate had to sanction nonconforming acquisitions with contract 
values between $100,000 to $1 million; the head of a contracting 
activity or his SES or general officer designee for contracts between 
$1 million and $10 million, and an Army senior procurement executive, 
the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition) for 
contracts over $10 million. 

(U) During FY85 a drama played out over the constitutionality 

of this new law, specifically the provision added by Congress over 

the objections of the Administration requiring suspension of contract 

performance post award on filing of an objection by a losing bidder. 

Pursuant to the Act, a protest filed with the Comptroller General 

concerning an alleged violation of a procurement statute or 

regulation would act to bar award of a contract, if the contract was 

not yet awarded, or to suspend performance under the contract until 

the General Accounting Office (GAO), an arm of Congress, rendered a 

decision on the protest. The sole possible exception was where the 

head of the procuring activity responsible for award of the contract 

notified the Comptroller General of his finding that 

award/performance of the contract was in the best interest of the US 

or that urgent and compelling circumstances significantly affecting 

interests of the US would not permit waiting for the Comptroller 

General's resolution of the protest. The Office of the Attorney 

General asserted the legislature had unconstitutionally usurped the 

powers of the executive branch of government. The Office of 

1 28 
Management and Budget directed noncompliance with the statute. 



126 

127 
128 



BG Charles R. Henry, "Competition in Army Procurement: Foundation for 
Readiness," Government Executive , Oct 1985, p. 14. 
AMC White Paper, Competition, May 1985, pp. 2-3. 
Ibid. 



167 



(U) Other purposes of the new law were to eliminate the 
distinction between formal advertising and negotiation and to 
establish a new provision for protesting bids, one that would allow a 
contract award to be stayed while a protest was investigated. 

(U) Almost before the ink was dry on CICA, Congress enacted the 
DOD Appropriations Act of 1985, which in Section 8083 provided that 
full scale development funds would not be released for a DOD major 
system until the Secretary of Defense affirmed to Congress either of 
two situations — that there will be two or more production sources for 
the system or that the system would be procured in insufficient 
quantities to make dual sourcing appropriate. It then followed with 
the Small Business and Federal Procurement Competition and 
Enhancement Act, Public Law 98-577, that modified CICA and other 
previous statutes regarding synopsis requirements and a variety 
of other competition policies and procedures. 

(U) The statutory enactments were followed by implementing 
regulations and guidelines. DOD Directive 4245.9, "Competitive 
Acquisitions," was issued on 15 December 1984. It outlined 
responsibilities, imposed requirements and established new timeframes 
for establishing competition goals and annual reporting. Federal 
Acquisition Circulars 84-5 and 84-6 and Defense Acquisition Circular 
84-10 providing additional implementing instruction. Army's policy 
guidance was issued shortly before the AMC White Paper came out, on 
16 April 1985. 131 

(U) The changes brought more intensive management to promotion 
of competition as all levels were directed toward insuring that full 
and open competition was obtained whenever possible. For example, 
PMs and other acquisition managers had to invest money early in the 
cycle to obtain benefits of full competition later on. It was 
important to consider obtaining complete technical data packages 
early in the acquisition cycle. Also, acquisition strategies and 
noncompetitive situations had to be periodically reviewed to see if 
they could be improved. 

(U) Competition Management Office . Organization changes 
resulting from the new law included establishment of an AMC 
Competitiion Mangement Office in the DCS for Procurement. The 
function of this office included reviewing and, when appropriate, 



129 
130 
131 
132 



Ibid. 

AMC White Paper, Competition, May 1985, p. 2. 

Ibid. And Henry, "Competition in Army Procurement," p. 18. 

AMC White Paper, Competition, May 1985, 4-6. 



168 



challenging all noncompetitive acquisitions, tracking progress 
toward AMC competition goals, reviewing all noncompetitive actions 
that required DA approval, developing a competititon policy in 
conjunction with the DA Competititon Advocate General, participating 
in Materiel Acquisition Review Boards as a member and in selected 
post citation reviews and PM program reviews, conducting field 
liaison visits, working to eliminate impediments to contract 
competition, publishing articles on AMC's efforts to expand 
competitition. and keeping the Commander of AMC informed of progress 
in this area. 

(U) Each MSC was directed to develop its own competition 
management office out of existing resources. In addition, the White 
Paper encouraged appointment of competition advocates on either part 
or full time basis at contracting offices subordinate to acquisition 
activities. 

(U) The AMC Competition Management Office was established in 
the DCS for Procurement by reorganizing the DCS Procurement PM for 
Spare Parts, keeping its function of economic procurement of spare 
parts. Among initiatives for improving competition in 
FY85, a Competition Advocate Shopping List (CASL) listed future buys 
to be made by MSCs, thereby alerting potential suppliers to 
quantitltes and types of equipment to be purchased during the year on 
which they might wish to bid. 5 

(FOUO) Postage Stamp Persuasion . In August 1985, AMC undertook 
an effort to obtain removal of restrictive labels on contractor 
drawings. With such labels, other contractors were kept from 
reviewing the drawings and thus from competing with the original 
contractor in supplying the items depicted. Aping programs of the 
other Services, contractors submitting such drawings were notified by 
letter that the Government intended to withdraw its restrictions 
unless the contractor could fully support them as being developed at 
the contractors own expense. This "postage stamp persuasion" 
obtained an 8-10 percent success rate in the Navy program of seeking 
voluntary removal of propriatary claims, and a 40 percent success 
rate in a more aggressive Air Force program. 



* Ibid. 



JJjj DCS for Procurement, FY85 AHR submission, HQ AMC. 

136 Ibid. State of the US Army Materiel Command , 1985, (FOUO), HQ AMC, 



169 



(U) Reverse Engineering . Late In FY85 a program to help solve 
the problem of inadequate technical data packages on sole source 
procurements was developed. The $5 million pilot project called for 
contracting for a reverse engineering effort where technical data on 
selected replenishment spare parts was limited, perhaps by 
propriatary restrictions, and competitors lacked sufficient 
information on which to bid. The House Appropriations Committee 
called for the program for all of the Services in its 1984 report on 
the FY85 DOD Appropriation Bill. 137 

(U) In the initial stage of the pilot effort, TROSCOM drafted a 
model statement of work and in early August let a $1 million initial 
contract in which the contractor would select 20 items from among 120 
nominated by various MSCs. The contractor was to develop production 
drawings and specifications that the Government could use to competitively 
bid the items. The second stage called for distribution of the remaining 
$4 million to the MSCs to do their own reverse engineering contracting. 
The distribution was weighted in favor of MSCs with the worst competitive 
contracting statistics. AVSCOM received $1,157,260; AMCCOM, $276,239; 
TACOM, $276,624; CECOM, $564,580; and MICOM, $1,725,297. The MSCs were 
permitted the option of applying the funds through a competitively 
let new contract, modifying an existing competitive contract, or 
applying the funds to TROSCOM' s project. 138 

(FOUO) In one successful application of reverse engineering, a 
TACOM contract specialist purchased a sole source air filter from a 
dealer, had it reversed engineered, and obtained contract savings of 
$746 thousand on a purchase that would increase by $10 for each 
additional filter purchased. 

(U) Competition Statistics . In FY85, AMC raised the rate of 
competition to 34 percent of dollars awarded from 30 percent 
previously, and to 55 percent of total items, from 52 percent 
previously. 

(U) Spare Parts . The Spare Parts Review Initiative (SPRINT) 
continued to be a successful program for economical procurement of 
spares, although attention to the program waned somewhat as resources 
were diverted to implement requirements of CICA. An evaluation of 



137 



138 
139 
140 



DCS for Procurement, FY85 AHR submission, HQ AMC. AMC Competition 

Advocate/Spare Parts Office, Reverse Engineering Pilot Program: 

Progress Report, 209 Aug 85, and appendices. 

Ibid. 

DCS for Procurement, FY85 AHR submission, HQ AMC. 

Ibid. 



1.70 



the SPRINT program, called Total Reevaluation Under SPRINT Thrusts 
(TRUST), was undertaken and at the end of the year was still 
underway. As a program to control costs by such means as promoting 
competition, the SPRINT effort was a matured and institutionalized 
effort. Many of the new programs aimed at increased competition 
across the board were influenced by the SPRINT effort and would 
themselves directly impact upon and improve the economical 
procurement of spare parts. 

(U) The spare parts break out program in FY85 led to cost 
avoidance estimated at $250 million, up from $228 million a year 
earlier, simply by bidding nonpropriatary components of proprietary 
items. Of AMC's active total of 73,489 spare parts items subject to 
be coded for breakout and independent competitive procurement, 32,299 
were screened and coded in FY85. In the refund program, in which 
companies refunded the Government for having charged excessively for 
spare parts, the government received 127 refunds for $4,716,418, the 
largest component being a $4,003,923 refund from General Motors for 
Commercial Utility Cargo Vehicle (CUCV) spare parts. In FY84, nine 
refunds were received totalling $368,654. The competition rate for 
spare parts was 48 percent of the dollar amount awarded, and 51 
percent of items purchased. In FY84 the dollars spent in competitive 
acquisition were 52 percent of the total. The spare parts value 
engineering (VE) program showed a cost avoidance of $60.1 million, 
nearly triple FY84's $21.3 million figure. A total of 1,470 
"hotline" inquiries on possible overpricing of spare parts were 
received in FY85, and 1,090 were resolved. Training in spare parts 
purchasing continued with 1,540 personnel attending the Spare Parts 
Management course and 17.624 hours being spent in local training on 
spare parts acquisition. ^ 

Office for Procurement Policy and Analysis (U) 

(U) Functional Area 97 . Within the DCS for Procurement, the 
Office of the Assistant DCS for Procurement Policy and Analysis 
served as the Army proponent for Functional Area 97, 
Procurement/Production Officer in the Army officer personnel system. 
Total Army-wide authorizations for this career field increased in 
FY85 from 587 to 607. Although this was less of an increase than in 
FY84, the number of Functional Area 97 authorizations climbed 31 
percent during the past two years. The total inventory of FA 97 
officers was 1300, a number which allowed a satisfactory utilization 
rate of qualified officers. There was also an increase in command 
positions for lieutenant colonel and colonel positions in FA 97, 

141 

Ibid; State of the US Army Materiel Command, 1985. 



171 



bringing that total to 59. At the colonel level, however, only 49 

qualified colonels were available to fill the 62 colonel-level 
authorized positions. 

(U) A number of other initiatives and improvements in the 
program occurred in FY85. The number of FA 97 officers training with 
industry was increased from 30 to 51. This program was also included 
into the Army Education Requirements Board, thus improving the 
stability of the program and increasing the efficiency with which 
officers trained under the program would be selected and assigned to 
positions requiring their skills. In addition, based on the 
direction by the VCSA that ten officers per year fill audit positions 
at the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), a training program was 
established with DCAA whereby 10 officers a year would be trained at 
the auditor trainee level. In both programs the training would be 
for one year while the officer was "en route to a three-year 
utilization tour to maximize the skills they have acquired." 

(U) The most significant change in the program accomplished in 
FY85 was the adoption of a single-track system for the FA 97 career 
field by the AMC and the US Army Military Personnel Center, following 
a briefing to the CSA in which he directed that "Army should support 
the position of General Thompson, Commander, AMC and move out" on 
establishing a mix of single and dual tracks for FA 97. Beginning in 
FY86, officers in the grades of captain through lieutenant 
colonel could seek to remain in the procurement /production field 
rather than alternate between FA 97 and some other career 
field specialty. On implementation, the program target was that 
10 to 12 officers per eligible year group—up to 50 percent of the total 
FA 97 authorizations — could be selected for the single track option 
after making voluntary applications for it to the Military Personnel 
Center. 143 

(U) Procurement Workshops in Iberia . In late CY84, General 
Thompson visited Spain and Portugal and conveyed AMC's interest in 
expanding defense cooperation. As a result of the visit, two 
three-day workshops were held in those countries to reinforce the 
message with government and industry and to advise industry in both 
countries of the mechanics of dealing with AMC, DLA, and USACAE . 
At the workshops the emphasis was on procurement of spare parts and 



142 
143 



Ibid; Memorandum, DCS Logistics for DCS Personnel, Subj: 
Procurement Briefing to VCSA029 Apr 85, 30 Apr 85. 
DCS for Procurement, FY85 AHR submission; Memorandum for Record, 
Subj: OPMS IPR for CSA, 27 Aug 85. 



172 



frequently procured secondary items. Representatives from HQ AMC, 
AMCCOM, AVSCOM, CECOM, TACOM, TROSCOM, DLA, and USACAE participated 
in the workshops. 

(U) Contract Management Review/Acquisition Management Review . A 
self-initiative to review performance of AMC activities' acquisition 
functions, contract management reviews (CMR) were performed on 
contract administration activities under AMC congnizance. In FY85 a 
CMR was performed upon the US Army Procurement Representative Office 
(ARPRO) at McDonald Douglas (formerly Hughes Helicopter) from 18-29 
March 1985. The review found the ARPRO to be performing its contract 
administrative function at a marginal level, but a follow-up 
surveillance review conducted from 27-30 August 1985 found that the 
ARPRO had corrected its deficiencies. A further follow-up was to be 
conducted in the fourth quarter of FY86. 

(U) Acquisition management reviews (AMR) were conducted in 
accord with the requirement in DODD 5126.34 and AR 715-11 that 
Military Departments and MACOMs, under the Defense Acquisition 
Management Review Program, conduct periodic reviews of procurement 
operations under their cognizance. These AMRs focused on 
contracting operations, either on all aspects of the contracting 
operation or on specific functions or areas that the AMC Commanding 
General, Deputy Commanding General, or DCS for Procurement deemed 
critical. 



Acquisition Management Reviews, FY85 

Organization Dates 

PM SANG 7-19 Nov 84 

AFRTS 14-18 Jun 85 

AMCCOM 25-29 Mar 85 

MICOM 22-26 Apr 85 

U.S. Military Academy 28-31 May 85 

CECOM 15-19 Jul 85 

DESCOM 6-8 Aug 85 

Source: DCS Procurement Historical Report, FY85 



j-^ DCS for Procurement, FY85 AHR submission. 

AMC was responsible for reviewing the procurement operations in 
several organizations that were not otherwise under AMC control, such 
as the United States Military Academy. 



173 



(U) In general, the AMRs showed that the activities were 
conducting their contracting activities in an efficient manner; 
however, some recommendations were made to improve both the quality 
of the acquisition actions and the efficiency of operation. 

(U) Business Clearance Reviews . Business Clearance Reviews 
were required by the AMC FAR Supplement 1.602-2-100 which prescribed 
such a review by HQ AMC for all noncompetitive negotiated contracts 
of $50 million or more and for other selected high interest items. 

(U) In September 1985 this was changed to include all 
negotiated contracts, noncomptetitive or competitive, for $50 million 
or more. Such a review helped ensure that the government team was 
adequately prepared for the negotiations, that its negotiating 
position was supportable, that audit or other recommendations were 
resolved, and that adequate terms, conditions/tradeoffs were 
developed. During FY85 the Office of the ADCS for Procurement Policy 
and Analysis conducted 34 procurement actions totalling an estimated 
value of $7.7 billion. Some of the issues addressed during these 
reviews included whether compensation/fringe benefits were in line 
with the Joint Logistics Commander's guidelines, whether similar 
issues were addressed uniformly by different MSCs dealing with the 
same contractor. Also, whether MSCs were rushing into negotiations 
to meet obligation schedules without sufficient or aggresive price 
negotiations, whether option prices for purchase of larger quantities 
were adequately evaluated, whether spare parts and their prices were 
included in the production buy, and whether there was adequate 
support for the cost of the warranty. 

(U) Contract Audit Initiatives . In late FY85, AMCPP-S 
developed several initiatives for Improving the tracking, resolution, 
and use of audit reports in FY86. These included keeping management 
at all levels continually informed of the status of audit reports, 
analysis of audit reports to develop trends, sending flash reports to 
MSCs on serious systemic problems, periodic visits with Defense 
Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) auditors to address specific audit 
problems, insuring that audit issues were addressed in AMRs, 
reviewing audits of the top 25 Army contractors to identify major 
findings and deficiencies for corrective action, and establishing 
adequate review levels for the resolution of audit issues. 

146 DCS for Procurement, FY85 AHR submission. 
\H "id. 

148 Ibid. 



174 



(U) Control of Contractor Indirect Costs (Overhead) . AMC's 
success in 1984 with an in-depth analysis and negotiation with 
contractors to reduce indirect costs led the Deputy Secretary of 
Defense to require that the Services and defense agencies exercise 
special efforts in this area in FY85. The new discipline in 
contract cost evaluation promised to be in full operation in FY86. 

(U) In FY85 a start was made on an early warning system for 
detecting surges in contractor indirect expenses. It integrated AMC 
forecasts with cost performance data for the top 25 AMC contractors 
to eliminate tunnel-vision problems caused when individual MSCs were 
unaware of the impact of other AMC business on a contractor with 
which they were dealing. 

(U) Except for three Army plant representative officers and 
the tank plants, indirect AMC contract costs were negotiated by 
non-Army contract administration officers. Three major issues were 
seen in these negotiations. The first was lack of visibility of 
future business. Here AMC was seeking ways to keep the contractors' 
business base estimate both current and complete. The second issue 
concerned the proliferation of data processing equipment, including 
those used for design and manufacture as well as management 
information. Although this resulted in increases in rent/lease, 
depreciation, and indirect labor costs, there should also have been a 
corresponding decrease in direct labor costs. The third issue was 
the surge in weapon system acquisitions since 1981 which was leading 
to increases in a variety of indirect costs: employee fringe 
benefits, facility duplication, plant rearrangement and maintenance 
utilities. These costs required careful review to determine their 
reasonableness as well as their allowability and allocation. 

(U) AMC had two candidates in FY85 for should-cost studies 
because of known problems in this third area; however, the intensity 
and length of formal should-cost studies would have interfered with 
ongoing corrective actions in those contractors' accounting systems, 
corrective actions that were required for adequate evaluation of 
their actual and projected indirect costs. The studies were dropped, 
and AMC instead assumed the leadership of, and provided additional 
technical support to, a study of another candidate selected by DLA. 
The resulting Forward Pricing Rate Agreement promised to save over 
100 million dollars in the next four years. Another in-depth review 
of indirect costs conducted at another contractor brought anticipated 
savings as well; also, lessons learned were such that improved 
professional discipline benefits should accrue in the following 
years. 



175 



(U) In general, AMC's should cost program was reaping the 
benefits of studies of major procurements over the prior four years. 
Beyond the savings, "an expert corps of pricing, technical, and 
operations research people in our acquisition structure has developed 
who can evaluate contractor's proposals, critique them, and develop 
alternatives with empirical and theoretical support." 

Procurement Management Division (U) 

(U) Much of the work of the Procurement Management Division 
(AMCPP~M) concerned specific weapon systems and is discussed in the 
Force Modernization chapter. However, a number of more general 
issues were also handled by this organization. 

(U) Technical Data Rights . The Joint Logistics Commanders had 
chartered a committee in June of 1985 to develop a comprehensive 
joint Service program to acquire and enforce government data rights. 
A Joint Logistics Commanders' directive containing uniform procedures 
for the acquisition, acceptance, validation, challenge procedures and 
enforcement of these data rights was anticipated. At the 25 October 
1985 meeting of the committee the Air Force Systems Command was 
elected to the chairmanship of the group, and each Service was given 
the lead role on assigned tasks. AMC took the lead on validation and 
challenging. Another development in the area of data rights was 
the design of a course that would be offered to all AMC activities. 

(U) Justifications and Approvals . One effect of the 
Competition in Contracting Act (effective 1 April 1985) was a change 
in the approval procedures for Justifications and Approvals (J&A) for 
other than full competitive procurements. J&As for more than $10 
million were staffed through HQ AMC to the DA Competition Advocate 
Office and then to the Secretary of the Army for Research, 
Development and Acquisition (SARDA) for approval by the Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition). From 1 April 1985 to 
the end of FY85, 69 J&As were processed through AMC. Initially, from 
April through July 1985, processing took an average of 25 days at AMC 
and 30 days at the DA level; however, following changes in AMC's 
procedures and a letter from the Deputy Chief of Staff for 
Procurement to HQDA/SARDA, processing goals for AMC were established 
at seven working days and for DA/SARDA at 19 days. At the end of the 
fiscal year AMC was averaging nine working days per approval. 

"! ibid, 
ibid. 

i:>1 Ibid. 



176 



(U) Acquisition Plan Reviews . Another result of the 
Competition in Contracting Act was greater emphasis in higher 
headquarters review of insuring that Program Managers were providing 
for full compliance with the law in their acquisition plans, assuring 
that full and open competition for both the end item and its 
components would exist. Acquisition plans were staffed through HQ 
AMC to DA/SARDA for approval by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the 
Army (Acquisition). Originally it took an average of 25 days at AMC 
and 45 days staffing at the DA/SARDA level, but in the same action 
that speeded up the procedure for Justifications and Approvals, goals 
were set for AMC of 14 working days and for DA/SARDA of 35 days. AMC 
was averaging 12 days at the end of the fiscal year. During FY85, 
AMC processed 141 Acquisition Plans. 

(U) Additional Workload Data . Processing time for other 
matters dealt with by the division included 120 days in which to make 
unpriced contractual instruments definite (180 days if a DCAA audit 
was required), and approval being required from the Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of the Army for further extension. During FY85, AMC 
processed 180 Definition Extension requests and 93 Unpriced Order 
requests. 

(U) DCS Procurement reviewed various investigative reports and 
audits in order to initiate or recommend whatever corrective action 
was required. During FY85 the following were reviewed: 46 Inspector 
General reports, 16 General Accounting Office reports, 56 Army Audit 
Agency reports, and 40 DOD Inspector General Subject Reports, for a 
total of 158 investigative reports and audits. 



DCS for Production (U) 

(U) As an element of the former DCS for Procurement and 
Production at the beginning of FY85. the DCS for Production acquired 
a singular identity on 1 July 1985. On becoming a separate DCS, 
Production went from being a division with three branches (industrial 
mobilization, production, and resources management) to a DCS with 
four assistant deputy chiefs of staff. There was an ADCS for 
Production and Industrial Preparedness and three other ADCS, each 
with responsibility for at least two divisions. The ADCS for 
Production Support encompassed the Production Assessment Division and 



III Ib "- 

154 IMd- 

See discussion of reorganization in immediately preceeding section on 

DCS for Procurement. 



177 



the Engineer and Production Support Division. The ADCS for Weapons 
System Production Management oversaw the Weapons and Munitions 
Division, the Missiles, Communications and Electronics Division, the 
Tracked Combat and Tactical Vehicles Division, and the Aircraft and 
Other Support Division. Finally, the Program Formulation Division 
and the Industrial Mobilization Planning Division fell under the ADCS 
for Industrial Preparedness. The DCS by the end of the year was 
authorized six military and 82 civilian spaces, as well as 25 
individual mobilization augmentation authorizations. 

Defense Priorities and Allocation System (DPAS) (U) 

(U) In March and April 1984, Congress extended provisions of 
the Defense Production Act until 30 September 1986. The Act is the 
legal basis for the Defense Priorities and Allocation System, 
regulations for which were issued by the Department of Commerce in 
final form on 30 July 1984. The DPAS was binding on industry and 
government personnel and obtained preferential treatment and timely 
delivery on defense contracts and orders. The DPAS supplanted the 
Defense Materials System (DMS) and the Defense Priorities System 
(DPS). 156 

(U) Under the DPAS final rule, which became effective 29 August 
1984, there was a delegation of authority to the Secretary of Defense, 
but by the end of FY85, the Secretary had not redelegated his 
regulatory authority as he had under the prior regulatory scheme. 
Accordingly, priorities and allocations actions which were in process 
were within the scope of previously delegated authority. The 
Defense Priorities and Allocations Council (DPAC), composed of senior 
defense priorities and allocations officers, continued to oversee 
development of regulatory guidance needed to implement and improve 
the DPAS. DOD Series 4400 guidance was being revised by the 
Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA) with technical assistance by 
Service representatives, including two represntatives from AMC. Six 
drafts, each requiring substantial review and significant changes 
were made, and final publication was projected for early 1986, after 
which further implementing guidance by the Services was anticipated. 

(U) In FY85 the Department of Commerce and AMC were engaged in 
a joint effort to educate government and industry contracting 
personnel about the DPAS. The Defense Priorities and Allocation 

155 DCS for Production, FY85 AHR submission, HQ AMC. 
\ Ibid. 

58 Ibid * 
158 Ibid. 



78 



course given by the US Army Management and Engineering Training 
Activity (USAMETA) was revised in FY85 to incorporate the new DPAS 
rules and the DOD program guidance. 

(U) DOD Priorities and Allocations Symposium . An AMC 
contingent led by Colonel J. C. Dondlinger, chief of the Production 
and Industrial Preparedness Division, Colonel J.C. Dondlinger, 
presented AMC's perspective and activities in the area of industrial 
preparedness, priorities and allocations, and production base support 
at the first annual DOD Priorities and Allocations Symposium, 
sponsorerd by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Research 
and Engineering, in June 1985. AMC was to host the symposium in 
1986. 160 

Production/Resources Base (U) 

(U) Precision Optical Components . In FY85 the Joint Logistics 
Commanders had proposed a precision optics supplement to the FAR 
that, in order to maintain a North American production base, would 
limit procurement of such items to American and Canadian sources. 
Concern over the impact such limitation would have to procurement 
costs led the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research, 
Development, and Acquisition, to direct a study of the issue by AMC. " 

(U) The FAR supplement assessment team consisted of 
representatives from the headquarters and from the Armaments Research 
and Development Center, the Night Vision Electro-Optical Laboratory, 
the Industrial Base Engineering Activity, and Missile Command. PMs 
and prime contractors on selected weapon systems submitted impact 
statements. A survey of the domestic precision optical industry was 
planned to determine its capacity limits, surge and mobilization 
capability, and to survey its "purported loss of business to foreign 
competition in both DOD and commercial sectors." The team was to 
report by 1 January 1986. 162 

(U) Germanium Reclamation . In another move toward greater 
self-sufficiency, a tri-Service/Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) group 
was established to investigate the feasibility of Germanium 
reclamation. Germanium, a rare semimetallic element found primarily 
in Africa, had particular importance to military infrared detection 
devices. The multi-agency group was chaired by the Engineering and 

i^>id. 
jibid. 

62 Ibld ' 
162 Ibid. 



179 



Production Support Division of the DCS for Production. DLA had other 
precious metals reclamation programs established, encompassing 
collection, reclamation, and issuance activities; a similar program 
appeared likely for Germanium. 

Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Materials Shortages (U) 

(U) A DOD program addressing the problem of nonavailability of 
parts, particularly micro-electronic/electronic components for 
equipment no longer state-of-the-art, was underway in FY85. The AMC 
Commander named Laboratory Command as AMC's lead for implementing the 
DOD program outlined in DOD Directive 4005.16, Diminishing 
Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS), and in the 
similarly titled draft Army Regulation fAR 700-XX). The DCS for 
Production was given corporate control. 

(U) POCs were established in each of the subordinate commands. 
Working as an ad hoc group, the POCs were drafting implementing 
regulations that would seek to answer problems not only in the 
micro-electronics area, but — pursuant to concern of the AMC 
Commander — in all areas where loss of commercial markets, low volume 
of defense requirements, or other difficulties made continued 
production of critical components noneconomic or otherwise infeasible 
for the producer. The AMC regulations working title was Materials 
and Parts Availability Control. 165 

Defense Standardization and Specification Program (U) 

(U) In FY85, AMC continued to exercise Army-wide responsibility 
for the broad-based DOD Defense Standardization and Specification 
Program (DSSP). 166 FY85 funding for AMC's DSSP program was $22,839 
million, 1 percent below FY84 and 78 percent of the requested level. 
This provided approximately 381 man years of standardization efforts 
and $8.9 million in contracted services. 

(U) DOD Parts Control Program . The DSSP objective of promoting 
efficient use of resources was carried out through such activities as 
the Parts Control Program, formally established in AR 700-60 and 
MIL-STD 965, which promoted use of standardized parts in end items 
whenever feasible. On 12 December 1984, the Secretary of Defense 



}^ Ibid ' 
65 Ibld * 

66 Ibid * 
ibb AR 700-47. 

167 DCS for Production, FY85 AHR submission, HQ AMC. 



180 



issued a memorandum emphasizing the importance of assuring contractor 
compliance with the PCP objectives. Through the rest of the fiscal 
year, the memo formed the basis for revision of the PCP program 
documents. In AMC's reviews of new items of equipment received from 
contractors in FY85, 5,547 "nonpref erred" parts were counted; of 
these, it was determined that 2,090 could be replaced by parts that 
had been designated as preferred or standard for new design. Using 
DLA cost benefit techniques, cost avoidance of approximately $12 
million was obtained by the PCP review. 168 

(U) DepSO-MIS . Under DepSO-MIS, or Departmental 
Standardization Office-Management Information Systems, AMC was 
automating DSSP functions. In FY85, it renewed a contract for a data 
base adminstrator who was to control format changes and computer 
inputs into the system. 

Data Management Program (U) 

(U) Data Item Descriptions . Steps were taken during the year 
to discipline the collection and preparation of technical data 
information required from and needed in the production process. The 
DOD Data Item Descriptions, standard form prescriptions defining 
content and format of technical data reports required from 
contractors by Army developers, had been modified, augmented, 
replaced, and supplanted by locally developed Data Item Descriptions. 
Several complementary approaches were taken. Army proponents of some 
318 non-standard, ad hoc recurring data item descriptions had been 
given one year to substantiate their need or to discontinue use of 
such standards. In FY84, 78 new Army-prepared Data Item Descriptions 
were added to the list of some 3,000 or so standard DOD Data Item 
Descriptions, use of the rest being prohibited. Also, as an 
amendment to AR 700-51, Army Data Management Program, modification of 
any of the approved DOD Data Item Descripitons via addendas, 
exhibits, attachments, or whatever was likewise prohibited. Finally, 
Army coordination of a Military Standard entitled "Preparation of 
Data Item Descriptions," DOD-STD-963, was accomplished. As a result 
of the coordiantion, 42 Army "essential" comments were forwarded to 
the 0SD Preparing Activity for incorporation. 

(U) TDP Acquisition Policy . Sometimes nonexistent Technical 
Data Packages that would be required by manufacturers to enter 
production of developed materiel was a bottleneck attacked in FY84 by 

168 Ibid. 

5>id. 

170 Ibid. 



181 



revision of the AR70-1, Army Research, Development, and Acquisition, 
to require upfront pinpointing of where, when and what would be 
required in terms of TDPs as part of the overall acquisition strategy 
planning and funding process. The revision was forwarded to the DA 
proponent of the regulation for incorporation. 

Technical Information Management System (U) 

(U) Technical Data/Configuration Management System (TM/CMS) . 
Falling under the Technical Information Management System (TIMS) 
management umbrella in FY85, TD/CMS maintained its identity as a 
separate project. It was in the throes of system redesign to better 
meet the needs of the configuration management system. The primary 
efforts were with developing the functional description and refining 
the redesign objectives. TACOM led the work, assisted by the 
Automated Logistics Management Systems Activity (ALMSA). 

(U) Another item of note concerning TD/TCMS was its evaluation 
by the Air Force Sacramento Air Logistics Center for use in 
automating the Air Force engineering data repositories. Action was 
also underway to rewrite AMC's Configuration Management regulation, 
supplementary to that of the Joint Services'. By the end of FY85, 
the several MSCs had developed their comments on the project and work 
was to begin incorporating these into the revision. '-* 

(U) Digital Storage and Retrieval Engineering Data System 
(DSREDS) . Also brought under TIMS, the DSREDS effort to develop 
automated engineering data repositories for both the Army and the Air 
Force continued as a joint effort. The prime contractor, AT&T, was 
to provide one system for each Service with options for six 
additional Army systems and four additional Air Force systems. 
Significant progress was made during the year, although the 
contractor experienced delays in software development and some 
component deliveries. The scheduled delivery of the first system to 
MICOM slipped from December 1985 to April 1986 as a result. This 
also delayed decision on implementing options for additional 
systems. '* 



3 Ibld * 

4 Ibid " 
^Ibid. 



182 



Value Engineering (VE) (U) 

(U) Emphasis on the Value Engineering program in FY85 as the 
most promising arena for reducing production costs saw identified 
savings nearly double over the prior fiscal year. Through in-house 
and contractor improvement proposals, some $373.3 million was saved 
in FY84. The savings in production costs for FY85 was $667.2 
million. During the year, AMC rceived 664 Value Engineering Change 
Proposals (VECP) from contractors, approved 285, and made financial 
settlements on 333, with $167.1 million in identified cost avoidance 
and savings over the first three years of the change. AMC^s in-house 
program resulted in 540 verified and validated proposals with savings 
of $203.3 million in the first year and $296.8 million in the next 
two years. ' 5 

Training (U) 

(F0U0) In March 1985 the CG reported to the Chief of Staff of 
the Army on several new training programs for production engineers. 
To alleviate the problems resulting from the little actual 
manufacturing experience among AMC production engineers, a Training 
With Industry (TWI) program was established. Under the program, AMC 
engineers would train for approximately 12 months with a 
manufacturer. As of March, four AMC engineers had been selected for 
such assignment. In the Advanced Manufacturing Engineering Studies 
Program, an engineer would take 12 months for full-time 
graduate-level program concentrating on manufacturing/production 
engineering at such institutions as the University of Michigan, 
University of Massachusetts, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 
Boston University, and Lehigh University. As of March, one engineer 
had been selected for that program. 

Contract Administration (U) 

(U) Contractual Performance Shortfalls . In October 1984, the CG, 
AMC asked his MSC Commanders to send quarterly reports on all contractual 
performance shortfalls on weapon systems covered by the Project Management 
Control System (PMCS). In March 1985, the MSC's top ten contracts other 
than those covered by the MPMCS were added to the reporting requirement. 
DCS Production prepared a feedback report to the MSCs in order to provide 
consistency in analyzing and tracking the corrections of the 
shortfalls and in providing guidance on them to the MSCs. The 

x/ °Ltr (FOUO), General Thompson to General John A. Wickham, Jr. [Monthly 
Letter], 11 March 1985. 



183 



feedback reports analyzed the contractual shortfalls In terms of 
causes and remedies, shortfalls corrected and added, and progress In 
correcting shortfalls, including each command's trend, conclusions, 
and follow-on actions. 

(U) Contractors Requiring Special Attention . AMC developed the 
Contractors Requiring Special Attention Program to 
intensively manage poorly performing contractors. The program was 
designed as an improvement program, not to be used in a punitive 
manner, although debarment was possible. Specifically, once a poorly 
performing contractor was placed on the program by notification from 
the head of contracting activity, working in coordination with the 
Defense Contract Administration Service, it would have to submit an 
action plan for improvement and would be intensively monitored for a 
six-month period to resolve problem areas. Where the contractors 
fail to respond to this effort, they are referred to HQ AMC for 
further action, possibly disbarment. Lists of CRSAs submitted by 
MSCs to HQ AMC are combined into a master and distributed to all 
MSCs. 

(U) Production Review Integrated Database . During FY85, the 
DCS for Production began development of of the Production Review 
Integrated Database (PRIDE) to establish a system for integrating and 
tracking corrective actions required of contractors and developing 
the specific performance indicator data that would permit trend 
analysis for early identification of problem areas. PRIDE was to be 
implemented on Boeing Computer Services' Copper Impact Network in two 
phases. The first, scheduled for completion in January 1986, would 
establish a corrective action database called ARCADE (Audits, Reviews 
and Corrective Actions Database) that would allow managers to 
integrate and track all corrective actions. Phase 2 was to be 
completed in March 1986, an integration of specific performance 
indicators and trend analysis into the database. 

Industrial Preparedness Planning (U) 

(U) One of the more significant developments in the materiel 
acquisition area in FY85, Industrial Preparedness Planning (IPP) took 
a new approach. Previously, producers filled out a direct planning 
agreement (DD Form 1519) to provide information on surge and 
mobilization capability. These forms became the source of the 



Ibid. For more on the PMCS, see the DEA section of this chapter, 
_ above. 
178 Ibid. 



184 



179 
overall Industry capability assessment. Although a DOD system, ' * only 

the Army and DLA used it to any significant extent, leaving major 

gaps that rendered an accurate overall base capability assessment 

impossible. This problem compounded two other deficiencies in 

the way the system worked. Normally, there was no vertical planning 

beyond the prime or first sub-tier contractor, making the collected 

data suspect. Secondly, since little attention was actually paid to 

the data, there was a corresponding decline in its quality. 

(U) When these problems surfaced at the Under Secretary level, 
a moratorium was placed on use of the system until a full study was 
made. AMC then surveyed the data on the forms to determine the 
extent of the quality problem. The survey showed that 40 percent of 
the completed forms had inaccuracies significant enough to render the 
data unusable. The root cause of the inaccuaracies was determined 
to be the lack of emphasis on mobilization planning within AMC and 
DOD in general. AMC's study of the overall IPP system was 
implemented by a literature search of "the multitude of past studies 
done on the same subject; and by discussions with personnel 
throughout DOD who were responsible for implementing the program. 
The major findings of the study were that the present system could 
not capture the total base capability, that IPP was conducted outside 
of and behind the equipment acquisisiton process, that industry's 
involvement in IPP was minimal, and that the base capability 
assessment had no impact on the strategy which dictated materiel 
requirements during mobilization. 8 

(U) AMC devised a revised planning scheme drawing from what it 
had learned and with the object of taking a logical and practical 
approach to IPP. Instead of first obtaining detailed information 
from industry and using it to determine the industrial base, an 
attempt was first made to obtain, by macro analysis, a picture of the 
industrial base capability to meet DOD mobilization demands. Base 
capability shortfalls highlighted by this process would be further 
analyzed by sector studies of particular areas to determine which 
required attention at the DOD level. Then, attention was directed 
toward specific items uniquely critical to Army, analyzing fewer 
items but analyzing in greater depth than in the past, involving the 
PM in the planning, and bringing these surge/mobilization factors 
into the picture when setting the acquisition strategy for a new 
weapon system. 



J^DOD Instruction 4005.3. 

J^°DCS for Production, FY85 AHR submission, HQ AMC. 

Ibid. 
182 Ibid. 



185 



(U) Another facet of the new system was establishment of an 
Industrial Preparedness Steering Group whose membership encompassed 
all key players in IPP. For the first time, representatives of 
industry and those agencies (other Services, ODCSOPS, etc.) who set 
the requirements that must be planned for were brought early on into 
the planning process. AMC and other represented agencies with input 
in industrial base assessment — Labor, Commerce, Defense (Office of 
the Undersecretary of Defense for Readiness), and the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency — thus obtained industry input as to the 
manner in which its base was assessed and possible solutions to 
capability shortfalls and "closed the loop" with the strategists 
whose requirements drove IPP efforts. 

(U) The CG, AMC approved the new approach on 12 October 1985, 
and the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research, Development and 
Acquisition signed off on the program five days later. 

(FOUO) Training . In March 1985, the CG reported to the Chief 
of Staff of the Army on several new training programs for production 
engineers. To alleviate those problems resulting from most AMC 
production engineers having had "little actual manufacturing 
experience," the manufacturing Training With Industry (TWI) program 
had been established. Under this program, the AMC engineers would 
train for approximately 12 months with a manufacturer. As of March, 
four AMC engineers had been selected for TWI assignments. 

(U) In another program, the Advanced Manufacturing Engineering 
Studies program, an engineer could take a year off for full-time 
graduate level program concentrating on manuracturing/production 
engineering at such universities as the University of Michigan, the 
University of Massachusetts, MIT, Boston University, and Lehigh 
University. As of March, one engineer had been selected for the 
program. ° 5 

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (U) 

(U) During FY85 AMC was fairly successful in meeting its goals 
in the area of small and disadvantaged businesses with only two 
goals, that for Small-Business Set Asides and that for Women-Owned 
Business failing to meet their goal. Of the total US business. 

Jo 3 , Ibid ' 

8 8 5 Ibld ' 

Ltr, (FOUO), GEN Thompson to GEN John A. Wickham, Jr. (monthly 

letter), 11 Mar 85. 



186 



dollars spent, AMC awarded 15.1 percent ($3,512M) to small business. This 
was $437 million more than was awarded in FY84, itself an improvement from 
previous years, and slightly bettered the AMC goal of 15 percent. AMC 
awarded only 4.9 percent of its business dollars under Small Business 
Set-aside procedures, substantially less than its goal of 8.5 percent. AMC 
awarded $391.1 million to Small Disadvantaged Businesses, including both 
direct awards and Section 8(a) awards to the Small Business 
Administration, exceeding its goal of $380.5 million. Under the small 
business subcontracting category were the subcontracts let by prime 
contractors to small and disadvantaged businesses. AMC prime 
contractors let 32 percent of their subcontracting dollars to such 
businesses, exceeding the AMC goal of 26.9 percent by more than 6 percentage 
points. AMC continued to make significant improvements in the area 
of Research and Development contracts to small and disadvantaged 
business, increasing the dollar amount spent over FY84 from $207. 98 million 
to $256.96 million. Calculated as a percentage of awards, this was an 
increase from FY84 of 12.6 percent to 13.6 percent, and far exceeded the goal 
of 8.5 percent. The Small Business Innovative Research Program doubled in both 
research dollars and number of contracts in FY85, with AMC offices 
having made 142 contracts totalling $12.5 million under this 
program. Most of this was for exploratory development or technology 
base areas of the research cycle. Noteworthy contracts in this area 
include two successful contracts in the areas of Robotics (field 
material handling and artificial intelligence), the development of a 
lightweight air conditioning system to cool a chemically treated 
"spacesuit" worn by a soldier in a tank, and a high technology 
Reverse Osmosis Unit used for water purification 

(U) With a full staff in FY85, the Small Business Office was 
able to assume a "more proactive posture" in FY85. This included 
sending two significant guidance letters to field activities 
covering such topics as the requirements for using the Small and 
Disadvantaged Business subcontracting clause, AMC's small business 
policy, views on small business expressed at congressional hearings, 
and recommendations to improve performance in this area. Staff visits 
and communication/coordination with field units also significantly 
improved in FY85. 

(U) One area in which there was a major increase in workload 
was in appeals of Certificates of Competency. These certificates 
were issued by the Small Business Administration on the request of a 
firm after the firm was found not to be responsible by the contracting 
official. In essence, it is a statement by the SBA that the firm is 
capable of doing the work required by the contract. Although the 
certificate is normally conclusive, there were provisions in the law 
for the contracting official to appeal it through AMC and the Army to 



187 



the Administrator of the SBA, who makes the final decision. Workload 
was up in this area for two reasons. One was that Public Law 
95-577, passed in FY84 but effective in FY85, removed a previous 
exemption that removed simplified procurements from this appeal 
procedures. The other was that AMC took a firmer stance in regard to 
prompt contractor performance. As a result, appeals were increased 
from an estimated 6 to 8 per year previously, to over 30 in just the 
last quarter of FY85. 

(U) One of the major outreach tools for the Office of Small and 
Disadvantged Business Utilization were Industry Conferences, both 
those co-sponsored by DOD and the Department of Commerce and those 
sponsored by a variety of other sources including business 
associations, other government agencies, and members of Congress. In 
FY85, the Office of Small and Disadvantged Business Utilization 
required records be kept on such conferences. As a result, it was 
found that AMC personnel participated in 283 conferences, 262 of 
which were other than the official DOD Department of Commerce 
sponsored conferences. AMC provided an overall total of 303 
counselors at these conferences, for an estimated two mandays per 
conference, and provided an opportunity for an estimated 70,000 
business people to obtain information on doing business with AMC and 
the Army. Among the conferences in which AMC participated was the 
"West Virginia Initiative." This included a 4 April 1985 West 
Virginia Defense Fair sponsored by Senator Robert Byrd and organized 
by the American Defense Preparedness Association, a 1 July 1985 
"Software Valley, West Virginia in Morgantown, and a 9 September 1985 
West Virginia Facilities Development Day" held at the Russell Senate 
Office Building in Washington, DC, and again sponsored by Senator Byrd. ° b 

DCS for Intelligence (U) 

(F0U0) Within the DCS for Intelligence, the Technology Loss 
Control Division was established to be "responsible for all 
International Technology Transfer (IT^) control functions within 
AMC." Subsequently, points of contact for the division were 
established at all MSCs and laboratories. A regulation on IT 
control was drafted. The division's primary emphasis was on 
developing a technical assessment of Army weapon systems and 
identifying militarily critical technologies inherent in Army R&D 
efforts. These assessments, after validation by HQDA, would be used 
to establish policy guidance on the export, sale, and/or 



Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business, FY85 AHR submission. 



188 



co-production of these systems to ensure that critical technologies 
were not inadvertently exported. AMC contracted with the Los Alamos 
National Laboratories to prepare the assessments. 

(U) Near the end of the fiscal year, 58 weapons and 118 
technologies "were under review for the identification of embedded 
critical technologies." The review of two of these 58 weapon systems, 
those of the M1A1 tank and the Single Channel Ground and Airborne 
Radio, were completed and then forwarded to HQDA for validation. 
Through FY85 AMC expended $1 million on this program, and the DCS for 
Intelligence requested an additional $2 million per year for the 
program. A request had also been made to HQDA, Office of the 
Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence (OA.CSI) that AMC be 
assigned as the Executive Agent for Technology Security. 

(U) The Command established a Threat Evaluation Division within 

the DCS for Intelligence in order to provide tailored and focused 

threat guidance to the MSCs that would be used in the development of 

technology base programs and in system concept formulation efforts. 

This would ensure that AMC's efforts "are based on the threat and 

permit initial assessment of . . . relative worth in a Theater-wide 

_ . »188 
scenario. 

(U) In another move that would assist AMC's R&D efforts, the 
DCS for Intelligence assumed control of the US Army Scientific and 
Technical Information Team-Far East and the US Array Scientific and 
Technical Information Team-Europe (STITEUR) after their previous 
higher headquarters, AMC's US Army Foreign Science and Technology 
Center (FSTC), became part of the new Army Intelligence Agency (AIA). 
Maintenance of AMC control over the two Science and Technology 
Centers was considered necessary to enhance the close linkage and 
interface between AMC RDTE elements and the overseas information 
gathering arms of AMC. 

(U) The transfer of FSTC also resulted in the DCS for 
Intelligence acquiring complete management responsibilities for 
Program D650, Evaluation of Foreign Items. The program identified 
and reverse engineered promising foreign equipment to acquire 
advanced technologies and shorten the acquisition cycle. The budget 
for this program had been approximately $3 million annually for the 



1 Q-] 

■ LO/ DCS for Intelligence, FY85 AHR submission. Ltr (FOUO), General 

Thompson to General John A. Wickham, Jr. [monthly letter], 5 Sep 85, 

Quotation from letter. 

1 „DCS for Intelligence, FY85 AHR submission. 
189 

Ibid. Cf. Command Management chapter, this AHR. 



189 



past several years. It was anticipated that more intensive management 
and a "push" from top level management at AMC would result in an 
increase over the next several years. 

(li) In another intelligence area, the opening of a dialog 
between AMC and the Defense Intelligence Agency offered a "real 
prospect of moving human intelligence into the high technology arena 
for the first time." 

(U) The DCS for Intelligence also played a role in internal 
security efforts within AMC. In an effort to improve Operations 
Security (OPSEC) throughout the command by providing clear 
information on what must be done to protect against hostile 
exploitation, AMC schools added OPSEC instruction with 
an eventual goal of making OPSEC an integral part of each course. 
Also an OPSEC review of all AMC training manuals was being undertaken 
in order to "eliminate gratuitous sensitive unclassified information 
from such publications and provide only what is actually needed by 
the soldier in performance of his duties." 

(U) In addition, in July 1985, responsibility for the automation 
security program was transferred from the DCS for Information 
Management to the DCS for Intelligence. Among the first 
developments, the Tiger Team program was restructured and an SOP 
developed for the program, the basic thrust of which remained 
attempted penetration of AMC-unique automation facilities by 
functional experts in hardware, software, and security. By November 
1984, efforts ^ere underway to establish at the MSCs Centers of 
Excellence for various aspects of computer security. These Included 
centers for software, security and encryption standards, personnel 
surety and security, hardware and physical security, and input/output 
controls. Later in the year plans were also laid for a center for 
network security. Other ongoing automation security programs 
included accreditation of Regency Net, revision of inspection 
guidelines, and the development of security policies for embedded 
computer systems, systems which were integral to items of equipment. 



1 on 

"•DCS for Intelligence, FY85 AHR submission. 

l9l Ibid. 

192 Ibid. 

Ibid. For information on Tiger Teams and Centers of Excellence, see 

also Ltr, (FOUO), General Thompson to General John A. Wickham, Jr. 

[monthly letter], 8 Nov 84. For information on Regency Net, see PM 

chapter, this AHR. 



190 



CHAPTER IV 
PROJECT MANAGEMENT (U) 



(U) In October 1984 at the beginning of FY85, the US Army 
Materiel Command listed seventy separate product, program or project 
manager programs within its organization. These programs, established 
to bring various weapon systems and other materiel into being, vested 
the product, program, or project manager with authority to cut across 
organizational lines and to use any of the resources of AMC to 
accomplish his mission. This method was initiated in order to 
expedite the acquisition process. These programs have been a con- 
stantly evolving institution of the Command since its inception. The 
matrix management system allowed a flexibility of approach tailored to 
the development and acquisition problems associated with each 
particular program, product or commodity. 

(U) During FY85 steps were taken to improve the PM Program by 
providing for more flexibility in staffing and establishing a program 
by which PMs would be terminated when their specialized capacity for 
bringing major systems into operation was no longer required. Due to 
the continued force modernization effort, however, numbers grew. 
Fifty-four of the seventy PMs in existence at the beginning of the year 
had formal charters, while sixteen were still in a provisional status. 
During the year, nine more PMs were provisionally established and 
eleven provisional PMs received formal charters; thus, the list of 
chartered PMs grew to sixty-five and the number of provisional PMs 
dipped to fourteen. 

(U) In most instances the PMs reported to the commander of a 
major subordinate command, although a few reported directly to HQ AMC. 
The Office of Project Management (AMCPM) continued to exercise staff 
responsibility for the PM programs. 

Chartered PMs as of October 1984 (U) 

PM Command 



AAH (Advanced Attack Helicopter) HQ AMC 

TADS/PNVS (Target Acquisition Designation 

System/Pilot Night Vision System) HQ AMC 

ASH (Advanced Scout Helicopter) AVSCOM 

ACVT (Armored Combat Vehicle Technology) TACOM 

ADCCS (Air Defense Command and Control System) MICOM 

AWC (Amphibians and Watercraft) TROSCOM 



191 



ASE (Aircraft Survivability Equipment) 

ASH (Army Helicopter Improvement Program) 

ATC (Army Tactical Communications Systems (ATACS)) 

BFVS (Bradley Fighting Vehicle System) 

Black Hawk 

CAWS (Cannon Artillery Weapon Systems/JPM Guided 
Projectiles) 

CH-47 Modernization Program 

Chaparral/FARR 

Cobra 

CCE/SMHE (Commercial Construction Equipment and 

Selected Material Handling 

Equipment) 

Defense Communications Systems (Army) 

DIVAD (Division Air Defense Gun) 

FATDS (Field Artillery Tactical Data Systems) 

Firefinder/REMBASS 

Hawk 

Hellfire/GLD (Hellf ire/Ground Laser Designators) 

HET (Heavy Equipment Transporter) 

LAV (Light Armored Vehicle) 

ACE (M9/Armored Combat Earthmover) 

M113 Family of Vehicles 

MEP (Mobile Electric Power) 

MICNS (Modular Integrated Communication and 
Navigation System) 

MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket System) 

MSCS (Multi-Service Communications Systems) 



AVSCOM 

AVSCOM 

CECOM 

TACOM 

AVSCOM 

AMCCOM 
AVSCOM 
MI COM 
AVSCOM 

TACOM 

HQ AMC 

AMCCOM 

CECOM 

CECOM 

MICOM 

MICOM 

TACOM 

TACOM 

TACOM 

TACOM 

TROSCOM 

ERADCOM 

MICOM 

CECOM 



192 



9mm Pistol Program 

Nuclear Munitions 

OPTADS (Operations Tactical Data Systems) 

Patriot 

Pershing 

PLRS/TIDS (Position Location Reporting System/ 
Tactical Information Distribution Systems) 

PSE (Physical Security Equipment) 

SANG (Saudi Arabian National Guard Modernization 
Program) 

Satellite Communications 

SEMA (Special Electronic Mission Aircraft) 

SINCGARS (Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio 
Subsystem) 

SMOKE/Obscurants 

Stinger 

Tactical Airborne Remotely Piloted Vehicle/ Drone 
System (RPV) 

*M1 Abrams Tank System 

*Tank Main Armament System (TMAS) 

*M60 Tanks 

TMDE (Test, Measurement and Diagnostic Equipment) 

ATSS (Automatic Test Support Systems) 

TMDOD (TMDE Modernization) 
TOW 
TRADE (Training Devices) 



AMCCOM 
HQ AMC 
CECOM 
MICOM 
MI COM 

CECOM 
TROSCOM 

USASAC 

CECOM 

AVSCOM 

CECOM 

AMCCOM 

MICOM 

AVSCOM 

TACOM 

TACOM 

TACOM 

CECOM 

CECOM 

CECOM 

MICOM 

HQ AMC 



193 



ARD (Armor Training Devices) 
US Roland 



HQ AMC 
MICOM 



PMs followed by indented entries were capstone PMs to which the 

indented PM were subordinate. 

* These were subordinate to PM Tanks (Provisional). 



Source: AMCPM Listing 



(U) Of the three types of PMs, the offices of program and project 
managers were created and chartered by the Secretary of the Army, the 
program manager being further distinguished by having PMs subordinate 
to it, although both program and project managers were colonels or 
general officers. A product manager, on the other hand, was created 
and chartered by the Commander of AMC and was usually a colonel or a 
lieutenant colonel. Two product managers appointed over PM offices 
established during the fiscal year were GS-15 civilians, a first in the 
command's history. 

(U) Of the twenty-five PMs in provisional existence at some point 
during FY85, eight were product managers, twelve were project managers, 
and five were program managers. Of those created during the year, five 
were product managers and therefore established by the AMC command, 
three were project managers, and one, the PM for Air Defense Systems, 
was a program manager. 



Provisional PMs, FY85 (U) 



PM 

Project Manager, Ammunition 
Logistics 

Project Manager, Advanced 
Man-portable Weapon Systems 

Program Manager, Air Defense 
Systems 

*Product Manager, Apache 
Automatic Test Equipment 

*Product Manager, Army 
Communications Systems 

Army Tactical Missile 
System 



Date Date 

Provisionally Formally 
Established Chartered Command 



9 Apr 84 



12 Dec 83 



9 Apr 85 



2 Jul 84 



5 Sep 85 



10 Mar 83 



21 Jun 85 AMCCOM 



MICOM 



MICOM 



15 Nov 85 HQ AMC 



HQ AMC 



MICOM 



194 



Product Manager, Aviation 
Life Support Equipment 11 Apr 85 22 Nov 85 AVSCOM 

**Product Manager, Aviation 

Training Devices 27 Mar 84 29 Mar 85 HQ AMC 



Project Manager, Clothing 

and Individual Equipment 8 Nov 84 

Product Manager, Ground 

Forces 27 Mar 84 

Training Devices 



28 Aug 85 TROSCOM 



HQ AMC 



Program Manager, Light 

Combat Vehicles 29 Aug 84 TACOM 

Project Manager, Light 

Helicopter Family 6 Aug 84 28 Mar 85 AVSCOM 

Project Manager, Mines, 
Countermines and 
Demolitions 5 Oct 84 11 Jun 85 AMCCOM 

Project Manager, Mobile 

Protected Gun System 12 Dec 83 TACOM 

Product Manager, Mortar 

Systems 28 Aug 85 AMCCOM 

Product Manager, Night Vision 

Devices 24 May 85 12 Oct 85 CECOM 

Project Manager, Petroleum 

and Water Systems 16 Aug 84 TROSCOM 

Program Manager, Tactical 
Intelligence/Electronic 
Warfare System 5 Dec 85 ERADCOM 

Program Manager, Tactical 

Vehicles 19 Dec 83 18 Jan 85 TACOM 

Project Manager, 
Heavy Tactical 
Vehicles 19 Dec 83 18 Jan 85 TACOM 

Project Manager 
Medium Tactical 
Vehicles 19 Dec 83 18 Jan 85 TACOM 



195 



Project Manager 
Light Tactical 
Vehicles 



19 Dec 83 



18 Jan 85 TACOM 



***Program Manager, Tank 

Systems 9 Jan 84 

Product Manager, Test 

Program Sets 20 Dec 84 

Product Manager, Topograph- 
ical Support Systems 13 Nov 84 



23 Jan 85 TACOM 



21 Oct 85 CECOM 



28 May 85 TR0SC0M 



Notes : 

* Subordinate to PM Advanced Attack Helicopter 
** Subordinate to PM Training Devices 

*** Has subordinate PMs for the Ml Abrams Tank, Tank Main Armament 
System, and M60 tank. 

Sources: Office of Project Management AHR input for FY85 and 
Provisional PM list from AMCOM. 



(U) Two PMs had their reporting channels changed during FY85. On 
26 August 1985 Tactical Airborne Remotely Piloted 

Vehicle/Drone System was changed from AVSCOM to MICOM. On 28 August 
1985 PM, Modular Integrated Communications and Navigation System was 
changed from ERADCOM to PM, Tactical Airborne Remotely Piloted Vehicle/ 
Drone System. PM, Joint Tactical Missile System, a combined Army and 
Air Force effort, reverted to PM, Army Tactical Missile System when the 
Air Force dropped its support for the system. 

(U) Although no PMs were abolished in FY85, AMC did develop a 
policy and program to terminate PMs after they were no longer needed. 
Stressing the high cost of PM management and the need to limit it to 
high priority programs and to prevent it from becoming the customary 
method of conducting business, General Thompson, in a 23 April letter 
set forth the guidelines for terminating PMs. The sole criterion for 
deciding to terminate a PM and transfer control over its program to a 
commodity command was to be the "achievement of . . . initial 
operational capability (IOC)" for the system or systems controlled by 
that PM. This policy was to apply to transition of individual systems 
to commodity command control even if the PM office continued to exist 
to control other systems; however, an annual review would determine If 
the remaining systems were significant enough to warrant the 
continuance of the PM office. 

(U) Attainment of IOC was to be determined by fourteen 
indicators. Once the initial phase of fielding was completed these 
Indicators were to be reviewed, and those "not satisfied will be 
addressed as quickly as possible to expedite the transition of the 
system/item. " Then, following the approval of the PM's transition plan 



196 



by HQDA, or HQ AMC if it were the chartering agency, the 
responsibilities, assets, and personnel would be redistributed to an 
MSC. If the PM then had no other assignments, it would be terminated. 

(U) This program was to be tested by the PM responsible for the 
AN/TPQ-36 Mortar Locating Radar (Firefinder) and the AN/TPQ-37 
Artillery Locating Radar (REMBASS), which systems had reached IOC in 
the field in the third quarter of FY83 and the first quarter of FY81 
respectively. In FY85 , eight separate system transition plans and 
four PM office termination plans were submitted to HQ AMC. 

PM Termination Indicators (U) 

Acceptable Safety Record 

Technical Data Package Verified as Complete 

System Mission Capable Rates Meets DA Standards 

DSARC/ASARC/IPR — No Major Open Items From Last Review 

Field Performance Requirements Met 

Production Lines — No Major Problems — Smooth Production 

Political Issues Satisfactorily Resolved 

Life Cycle Plan in Place — Program Being Executed Well 

Fielding Cycle Plan in Place — Major Fielding Completed 

Training Equipment Certified and Working Well 

TMDE Successfully Tested 

Technical Risk Management at Lower Management Level 

Quality Assurance Program Acceptable 

Safety Cognizance 

Source: Enclosure to Ltr, General Richard H. Thompson to Major General 
Robert D. Morgan, 23 Apr 85. 



Ltr, General Richard H. Thompson to Major General Robert Morgan, 
23 Apr 85 and ltr, Office of PM to Distribution, subj : Project 
Management (PM) System/item Termination Criteria and PM Office 
Termination Policy, 23 Jul 85. 



197 



(U) In FY85, first in August during an annual PM Conference and 
then in a September letter from the AMC Commander to the Commanders of 
the MSCs and to the PMs, the command initiated a policy of stressing 
the use of matrix management for PMs in order to insure the most 
flexible and efficient system possible. General Thompson stressed that 
with matrix management the role of the PM was not to execute the 
program but to integrate and manage the activities associated with the 
program. The actual accomplishment, the "doing" of the program was 
"accomplished by functional specialists external to the Project Manager 
Office (PMO), but over whom the PM has tasking authority." Items to be 
considered in structuring a PM program included whether there should be 
a dedicated cell of functional elements physically located with the PM 
or designated people in functional elements who were to be responsible, 
by name, to the PM. Other considerations included the participation of 
the functional elements in the PM's review and analysis, and vice 
versa, and the PM's input to the performance appraisals of the 
personnel in the functional elements who were tasked by that PM. 

(U) To improve the flexibility of the PM program by facilitating 
the movement of personnel into and out of the PM's Office, General 
Thompson directed that the TDAs for the PMs be cancelled, and the 
spaces transferred to the MSCs. Personnel would then be provided to 
the PM by the MSC on either a full-time basis or as required, as 
determined jointly by the PM and the MSC commander. Dedicated teams of 
personnel from the MSCs functional elements could be delegated to work 
on-site with the PM during work surges. "This action coupled with the 
detailing of personnel and the use of term appointments, which would 
permit one high grade space to satisfy different skill requirements, 
would increase resource flexibility over the system's life cycle." As 
indicated by the above quotation from General Thompson's September 
letter, even the dedicated core of full-time on-site personnel was 
expected to change in composition over the course of time, with the 
core being at first heavy with design and producibility engineers and 
development test experts, while later in the developmental cycle the 
"core composition should shift toward configuration management, 
production engineering and quality assurance expertise." Integrated 
logistics support personnel, however, would be needed throughout the 
cycle. 3 

(U) An innovation in PM management in AMC was the selection for 
the first time in AMC history of civilians to head PM offices. Mr. 
Jerry L. Wilson (GS-15) became the product manager of the Topographical 
Support Systems PMO, which was established in November 1984, while Mr. 
Kenneth S. Solinsky (GS-15) became the product manager of the PMO for 
Night Vision Devices, established in May 1985. 



2 Ltr, General Richard H. Thompson to Major General Fred Hissong, Jr. 
et al, subj: Project Management Policy, 11 Sep 85 and PM Office 
input for the AHR, FY85. 
Ibid. 

198 



3 



(U) In FY85, 140 Army students graduated from the 19 week Program 
Management Course given by the Defense systems Management College. In 
the course of the fiscal year the VCSA mandated that all PM designees 
who had not already taken that course would do so before becoming a PM, 
and seven PM designees were programmed to graduate from that course in 
December 1985. 

Specific PM Programs (U) 

(U) Although most PMs reported to MSC Commanders, ten provisional 
and chartered PMs reported directly to Headquarters, AMC.^ 

PMs Reporting to HQ AMC 

Advanced Attack Helicopter 

Target Acquisition Designation System/Pilot Night Vision System 

Apache Automatic Test Equipment 
Army Information Systems 
Nuclear Munitions 
Training Devices (TRADE) 

Armor Training Devices 

Army Communicative Systems 

Aviation Training Devices 

Ground Forces Training Devices 

Source: Army Project Management List, 1 December 1985 



(U) FY85 activities of PM TRADE, its subordinate PMs, and PM Army 
Information Systems are discussed in this chapter. PM Nuclear 
Munitions will be covered in the Materiel Acquisition chapter as part 
of the discussion of the DCS for Chemical and Nuclear Matters. The 
Advanced Attack Helicopter PMs will be covered in the AVSCOM AHR. In 
addition, PM SANG will be covered in the USASAC portion of this AHR. 

PM TRADE (U) 

(U) PM TRADE, operating through four subordinate PMs, was 
responsible for managing the acquisition of training devices for the 
Army. In FY85 it was responsible for delivering to the Army 49 
different types of training devices and simulators totaling 13,065 
items worth $258.7 million. 



4 PM Office input for AHR, FY85 and AMC Program/Project/Product 
Manager roster as of 24 Oct 85. 

5 Activities of the PMs reporting to MSCs are left to discussion 
within their historical profiles. 



199 



Device 



PM TRADE Devices Fielding in FY85 

Quantity Fielded 



AH1 Flight/Weapons Simulator 4 

Ml Conduct of Fire Trainer (COFT) 30 

M2/3 Conduct of Fire Trainer (COFT) 16 

M60A3 Conduct of Fire Trainer (COFT) 4 

Ml Trainer Turret Organizational Maintenance 

Trainer 9 

Ml Turret Organizational Maintenance Trainer 8 

Ml Hull Electric Computer Maintenance 

Trainer Panels 7 

Ml Transmission Maintenance Trainer Panels 13 

Ml Engine Maintenance Trainer Panels 13 

Ml Ballistic Computer Maintenance Trainer Panels 4 

Ml Turret Electric and Hydraulic Maintenance 

Trainer Panels 4 

Ml MILES 516 

M2/3 MILES 451 

Air Ground Engagement/Air Defense (AGES/AD) I 

UH 1 221 

OH 58 327 

AH 1 476 

Vulcan (SP) 172 

Vulcan (TOW) 66 

Chaparral 201 

Stinger 211 

M21 Blank Firing Attachment 7,859 

Gunfire Simulator (GUFS) 1,703 

Tactical Vehicle Maintenance Troubleshooting 

Trainer (TVMTT) 43 

Armor Moving Target Carrier 11 



200 



Collision Avoidance Radar Navigation Systems 

Trainer (CARNS) 1 

CH-47D Electrical System Trainer, DVC 01-46 1 

AH-1S Helicopter Installed Television Monitor 

and Recorder (MITMORE), DVC 01-135 6 

Truck Driver Trainer, DVC 55-19 4 

UH-60A Black Hawk Electrical Systems Trainer 

DVC 01-116/1 (Classroom) 1 

UH-60A Black Hawk Hydraulic Systems Trainer 

DVC 10-116/2 (Classroom) 1 

UH-60A Black Hawk Power Train Trainer DVC 

01-116/3 (Classroom) 1 

UH-60A Black Hawk Electrical Systems Trainer, 

DVC 01-117-2 6 

UH-60A Black Hawk Power Train Trainer, DVC 

01-117/2 6 

Diesel Engine Trainer, DVC 55-18 16 

Hoffman (WESS) Tanks Gunfire Simulator 287 

Medium Girder Bridge & Link Reinforcement 

Sets, DVC 05-19 5 (sets) 

6 (links) 

Aerial Radiological Survey Training Kit, 

DVC 03-03 21 

Night Vision Shadow Projector, DVC 20-03 4 

Portable Remote Control Demo Firing Console 8 

Artillery, Mine and Demolition Noise Simulator 42 

Small Arms Gunfire Simulator, DVC 07-22D 39 

M-16A1 Rifle Mock-Up 2:1 Scale, DVC 09-19 170 

Remedial Rifle Marksmanship Trainer (Weaponeer), 

DVC 07-57 66 



201 



CH-47D/T-55-L-712 Turbine Engine Trainer, 
DVC 01-91 



Source: PM TRADE AHR input, FY85 



(U) In addition, contracts were let through PM TRADE'S Logistics 
Management Branch to modify or reprocure the AH-1S Armament Procedures 
Trainer, DVC 01-34; the Artillery, Mine and Demolition Noise Simulator, 
DVC 6-19C; the Small Arms Flash, Noise Simulator, DVC 7-22D; the M16A1 
Rifle Mock-up, 2:1 scale, DVC 09-19; the 0V-1D Electrical Systems and 
A/C Instrument Trainer, DVC 01-08; and the Radar (Target) Operator 
Training Complex. 

(U) Other actions accomplished included the development of 
integrated logistic support plans (ILSPs) for Guard Fist II, Laser 
Target Interface Device (LTID), Combined Artillery /Aviation Simulator 
(CAAS), Aviation Combined Arms Team Trainer (ACATT), Simulation of Area 
Weapons Effects Indirect Fire (SAWE-IF), and Simulation of Area Weapons 
Effects Mine Effects Simulation (SAWE-MES). 

(U) Basis of Issue Feeder Data and Quantitative and Qualitative 
Personnel Requirements information was obtained for the Through Sight 
Video, Scaled Range Target System, Mobile Conduct of Fire Trainers 
(MCOFT), Air Ground Engagement Systems II (AGES), Remotely Piloted 
Vehicle (RPV) Institutional Trainer, Multiple Object Locator System, 
Army Training Battle Simulation System (ARTBASS), Signal 
Intelligence/Electronic Warfare (SIGINT/EW) Equipment Operator 
Simulator (SE0S), LTID, CAAS, SAWE-IF, and SAWE-MES. 

(U) Materiel Fielding Plans (MFP) were developed on the Video 
Disc Gunnery System, RADIAC Set Trainer, M2/3 Maintenance Trainers, 
CH-47D Maintenance Trainers, LTID, MCOFT, and the ARTBASS. Fielding 
support was supplied for the M1/M2 Unit Conduct of Fire Trainers, AH-1S 
Flight Weapon Simulator, Ml Maintenance Trainer, CH-47D Maintenance 
Trainers, Collision Avoidance Radar /Navigation System (CARNS), and the 
Firefinder Organization Maintenance Trainer. 

(U) The following systems obtained materiel release in FY85: Ml 
UCOFT (conditional release on 16 January 1985 and full release on 23 
May 1985), M1/M3 UCOFT (5 April 1985), M60A3 UCOFT (30 September 1985), 
Ml IC0FT (30 April 1985), Truck Driver Trainer (19 July 1985), and 
UH-60 Black Hawk Part Task Panel Trainers (18 August 1985). 

(U) In addition, the LTID was type classified, a system support 
package was developed for the MCOFT, a transition plan was developed for 
the fire finder trainer, and an SOP was developed for the implementation 
of the Manpower and Personnel Integration (MANPRINT) program. 



202 



(U) A six-month in-depth review of the Conduct of Fire Trainer 
coordinated by PM TRADE'S Configuration Management Branch with 
Armaments, Munitions, and Chemical Command (AMCCOM) led to a 30 
September 1985 sign-off on its technical data package and to the 
system's 1 October 1985 transition to AMCCOM for technical support. 
Deliverable drawings of the Remoted Target System/Armor Moving Target 
Carrier (RETS/AMTC) were reviewed by PM TRADE and AMCCOM and signed off 
on 9 August 1985, with transition of the system to AMCCOM occurring on 
9 August 1985. A physical configuration audit of the AH-1 was 
conducted as was a preshipment configuration inspection of the AH-64. 

(U) In PM TRADE the product assurance and test effort for the 
concept phase were to be accomplished primarily through use of a 
contractor. As a result, in FY85 the Product Assurance and 
Test Management Branch contracted with SAIC for provision of this 
support. 

Funding (U) 

(U) Overall, PM TRADE was funded for slightly under $500 million 
for FY85. It achieved an obligation rate of 96.1 percent for mission 
RDTE and of 77.9 percent for mission procurement. 

PM Army Communicative Systems (Provisional) (U) 

(U) In FY85 PM Army Communicative Systems was provisionally 
established under PM TRADE. It existed previously as Army 
Communicative Technology Office located under the Army Chief of Staff 
(HQDACS ) . 

PM Aviation Training Devices (U) 

(U) PM Aviation Training Devices was chartered on 29 March 1985, 
a year and two days after its initial creation, to manage the 
research, development and acquisition of the Synthetic Flight Training 
System (SFTS) and to provide assistance as required to other PMs on 
aviation-related training devices. In FY85, SFTS activities saw 
delivery of three AH1S (Modernized Cobra) flight simulators — one each 
to Fort Campbell, Kentucky; Illesheim, Germany and Fort Lewis, 
Washington. These devices, with an average cost of $16 million, 
provided field units a tool to improve training in crew coordination 
procedures, normal and emergency aircraft handling procedures, and 
gunner/tactical operations. Development of the prototype AH-64 
(Apache) Combat Mission Simulator continued with the integration of 
hardware and software and with preliminary pilot evaluations. 
Production of two CH-47D (Chinook) flight simulators continued, and 
delivery was scheduled for FY86. Contracts were let in FY85 for the 
upgrade of two existing CH-47 flight simulators, for fifteen UH-60A 
flight simulators in a multi-year contract, for six AH-64A combat 
mission simulators in another multi-year contract, and for three AH1S 
flight and weapons simulators. 



203 



(U) The PMO implemented three value engineering (VE) proposals 
which would save approximately $1.3 million during the year. It also 
placed additional emphasis on competition in awarding of contracts, 
especially for equipment repair parts, in accord with the overall AMC 
stress upon improved competition for the acquisition of spare parts. 

(U) One command management issue confronted in FY85 involved the 
acceleration of the schedule for the AH-64 Combat Mission Simulator and 
another concerned fragmentation of the responsibility for synthetic 
flight training systems. In order to speed up the acquisition of 
Combat Mission Simulators for the AH-64, a multi-year contract was let 
for six production model simulators prior to the completion of 
prototype development. It was expected that this would speed up 
delivery to the field by approximately four years. 

(U) Fragmentation of management responsibility for the SFTS 
program was brought about by funding the program indirectly through 
Weapon System PMs in AVSCOM. PM AVD noted that the indirect funding 
resulted in delays in receiving project funding that "will result in 
unnecessary perturbations in the SFTS program." To solve this problem 
"it is recommended that funding for the Synthetic Flight Training 
System be transmitted to PM AVD from AMC rather than through the 
aircraft system project officer's office. Under this concept, PM AVD 
will exercise a contract with the system project manager to establish 
cost, schedule, and technical performance of his simulators."" 

PM Ground Forces Training Devices (U) 

(U) Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System (MILES), the 
tactical training system in which eye-safe lasers and laser detecting 
devices were used to simulate various weapon systems, was expanded in 
FY85 by PM Ground Forces Training Devices (GFTD) . Production of the Ml 
tank MILES was completed on schedule and within cost in March 1985. The 
M2/M3 Bradley LOT I and II were completed as scheduled and fielding con- 
tinued worldwide. Two planned extensions to the existing MILES system were 
the Air to Ground Engagement Simulators (AGES) and the Air Defense Engage- 
ment Simulator (ADES) I. AGES used the Cobra as the offensive aviation 
weapon system and could simulate the Cobra's use of the TOW, of a 20mm 
gun, or the 2.75 rocket system. The ADES systems included both the towed 
and self-propelled Vulcan, the Chaparral, and the Stinger. 

Milestones for the AGES/APES I (U) 

Development Acceptance in Process Review May 1982 

Production Contract Awarded Jun 1982 

Initial Production Test Aug-Dec 1983 

First Article Test Completed Apr 1984 

Initial Operational Capability Jul 1984 



6 Historical Review FY85, PM AVD, submission of PM TRADE for AHR, FY85 

204 



Lots I and II Shipments Completed (below 

target cost) Feb 1985 

Lot III Shipments Completed (below target 

cost and 2 months ahead of schedule) Jul 1985 



Source: AHR input PM TRADE, FY85. 



(U) A planned follow-on laser engagement system to AGES I was 
AGES II. Described by PM GFTD, it would "enable helicopters to 
participate in combined arms tactical training" and "provide a 
realistic means of simulating helicopter operations during the course 
of tactical training and realism in tactical training by the inclusion 
of real-time casualty assessment in combined arms exercises 
Incorporating air-to-ground weapon systems." It would provide 
training for the AH-64, UH-60, CH-47D, OH-58D and the GLVVD. The full 
scale development contract was scheduled to be let in the second 
quarter of FY86. 

(U) Ancillary to the MILES program were a number of blank fire 
adapters and weapon effect signature simulators to provide training 
realism. The M19 and M20 blank fire adapters for M2 and M85 machine 
guns completed production deliveries and were transitioned out of PM 
management. Production was also completed for the M21 blank fire 
adapters for the M240 machine guns on the M48, M551 and M60 tanks as 
well as the M2/3 Bradleys. 

(U) Delivery of the M21 extension for the Ml tank was scheduled 
for completion by the second quarter of FY86. 

(U) The Gunfire Simulator (GUFS) provided a firing mechanism for 
the M21 pyrotechnic cartridge to produce a simulation of a main tank 
gun firing. A production model was being built for Fort Irwin and was 
type classified for use with the Remoted Target System (RETS). 

(U) Engineering development was completed for application of the 
Automatic Weapon Effects Simulator (AWESS) to both the multi-barrel 
20mm Vulcan and the single-barrel 25mm M2/3. Award of a production 
contract was scheduled for the second quarter of FY86. 

(U) The Machine Gun-Automatic Weapons Effect Signature Simulator 
was to provide weapon signature simulation for the M2 and M85, 50 
caliber and the M240 7.62mm machine guns. In FY85 the project was in 
the proposal evaluation stage and was expected to shortly enter the 
full scale development stage with a production decision anticipated In 
FY88. 



PM Ground Forces Training Devices input, submission of PM TRADE for 
AHR, FY85. 



205 



(U) The Collision Avoidance Radar Navigation System Trainer was 
designed to be used for simulated hands-on training in radar piloting 
and navigation at the US Army Transportation School. It was 
operational as of October 1985. 

(U) The Army Training Battle Simulation System (ARTBASS) had its 
production contract for ten units awarded on 28 February 1984 with the 
device being type classified in September 1985. It was anticipated 
that a competitive contract would be awarded for six more units. 

(U) The results of Operational Test II, received by March 1985, 
indicated the RADIAC Set, Trainer, was not yet ready for production; 
however, discussion with the operational tester indicated that the 
problems could be resolved. 

(U) A contract to develop a SIGINT/EW (Signal 
Intelligence/Electronic Warfare) Equipment Operator Simulator (SEOS) 
was let on 4 September 1985. The SEOS would be used to support the 
electronic warfare operations course at the US Army Intelligence School 
for Military Occupatinal Specialties 05D, 98C, 98G, and 98J. The 
following weapon systems would be simulated by the SEOS: Quick Fix, 
Quick Look II, Trailblazer, TACJAM, Improved Guardrail V, and Technical 
Control and Analysis Center (TCAC). 

(U) A contract for the Morse Mission Trainer, to be used for 
training by a national level intelligence system, was awarded during 
the third quarter of FY85. The trainer was to be an institutional 
morse code intercept mission simulator. 

(U) The Remotely Piloted Vehicle (RPV) Institutional Trainer was 
planned as a one-of-a-kind device to be used to train both operators 
and organizational maintenance personnel in critical tasks for the RPV 
ground control station (GCS). The device would consist of a main frame 
computer and three training groups. The first group would consist of 
three instructor stations and fifteen air vehicle operator stations. 
The second group would consist of three instructor stations and fifteen 
mission payload operator stations. The third group would have four 
integrated training stations consisting of GCS mockups, each with its 
own instructor station. A contract was awarded on 13 December 1984, 
and the first six months were spent in an intensive ISD effort to 
determine the training objectives. A PDR was held in October 1985, and 
a capabilities demonstration was scheduled for February 1986. 

(U) The Combined Artillery/Aviation Simulator (CAAS) consisted of 
a combined procurement of the Field Artillery Turret Maintenance 
Trainer (FATMT) and the Aviation Maintenance Interchangeable Panel 
Trainer (AMIT). On 13 August 1985 a contract was awarded to Raytheon 
Service Company for twenty-two FATMTs and six AMITs. On 13 September 
1985 the PM exercised its option to order an additional fifteen FATMTs, 
which were to be scheduled for National Guard regional maintenance 
training sites and for the 7th Air Training Center (ATC) at Vilseck, 
Germany. 



206 



PM Armor Training Devices (U) 

(U) By the end of FY85 a total of fifty Conduct of Fire Trainers 
(COFT) for the Ml, M1E1, M2/3, and M60A3 had been delivered in the 
United States and Europe, with a goal of supplying each armored 
battalion with at least one such trainer. The design for the four 
COFTs had emphasized commonality, with a resulting 90 percent 
commonality across the four systems. The initial production contract 
was passed from the PM to AMCCOM for award of Lots IV and V (see above 
under "PM TRADE" for more on its transition), while work was started on 
an Institutional Conduct of Fire Trainer to be used by the Reserves and 
National Guard. The M1E1 version of the COFT was to be delivered to the 
field before the actual weapon system. The overall program was below 
the target cost and ahead of schedule, with initial fielding reports 
having indicated availability rates in excess of 98 percent. 

US Army Information Systems Management Activity/Program Manager Army 
Information Systems (USAISMA/PM AIS) (U) 

(U) On 1 October 1984 the US Army Communications Systems 
Agency /PM Defense Communications Systems (Army) had the first part of 
its name changed to US Army Information Systems Management Activity. 
In October 1986 the last part of the name was changed to Program 
Manager Army Information Systems to reflect its function as the 
capstone PM for Army Information Systems. 

(U) As was related in the FY84 AHR, this organization was 
simultaneously a major subordinate command of the US Army Information 
Systems Command and a program management office of the Army Materiel 
Command, with the commander of USIAMA/PM AIS reporting to the CG AMC 
and/or the CG Information Systems Command as appropriate. 

(U) Almost all of the tasks and funds assigned to USAISMA/PM AIS 
came from the Information Systems Command; however, the one major 
AMC-assigned project on-going by the end of FY85 was Regency Net. 

(U) The goal of this project was to establish in Europe and Korea 
an arrangement of high frequency radio terminals. Such terminals were 
to be able to provide secure data and voice transmission for rapid and 
accurate communication with the lowest command levels and also permit 
transmission of messages up the chain of command. A criterion of the 
system would be to "incorporate the capability to maintain optimum 
performance in order to overcome the postulated electronic warfare 
threat through the 1990's." The system would use four different 
terminals: one (AN/TRC-179(V1) ) would be in a shelter that would 
either be mounted on a vehicle or dismounted in a fixed location, the 
second (AN/TRC-179(V2)) would be integrated into Ground Launch Cruise 
Missile Launch Control Centers, the third (AN/FRC-180(V)1) would be 
installed in buildings or classrooms for training, and the fourth 
(AN/GRC-215) would be mounted on a 1/4-ton truck or similar vehicle and 
would be supplied with a man-pack for use away from the vehicle. 



207 



(U) Regency Net was launched when the JCS approved the 
requirements of the US Army Commander in Chief, Europe for the project 
in April and May 1982. On 21 December 1983 a contract was awarded to 
Magnavox Government and Industrial Electronic Co. "to engineer, 
furnish, integrate, test and make operational the initial product 
samples." The contract included three fixed-price options for 
additional terminals, logistics, and training, while the three program 
years for these options were priced on both a multiyear and single 
year basis to provide the Government additional flexibility. In FY85 
the major efforts of the contractor were in the areas of engineering 
and software design. In December 1984 the first contract option was 
exercised for the rest of the logistical support Items and for 
production quantities of Regency Net terminals. In addition, in March 
1985 Magnavox received a separate contract to conduct site surveys in 
Europe. The surveys were to be completed in February 1986. 

(U) In October and November 1984 the PM Regency Net had a team 
conduct a requirements fact finding and site survey in Korea. The team 
subsequently completed a draft specification and statement of work 
(SOW) and draft acquisition requirements package (ARP) in August 1985. 
Also in August 1985, surveys were conducted at four CONUS sites that 
were to be used for Regency Net initial production sample tests. 
Production samples were to be readied by July 1986, to be followed by 
production deliveries beginning April 1987 and continuing into FY89. 



8 USAISMA/PM AIS Annual Review for FY85 



208 



CHAPTER V 

MATERIEL READINESS (U) 

DCS For Readiness (U) 



(U) Workplace Automation . The DCS for Readiness continued with 
an aggressive program of workplace automation that began in April 
1984, with identification and documentation of information processing 
requirements. Due to funding constraints, the total identified 
requirement could not be met in a single step and a phased approach 
to procurement and implementation was adopted. The 22 November 1984, 
delivery of three UNIX-based super microcomputers (two Plexus P60s 
and one Plexus P35) greatly enhanced the productivity of the DCS. A 
comprehensive plan for total information automation roundout was 
approved. The plan, when funded, was expected to provide an 
additional $1.6 million worth of hardware and software to fully 
automate the DCS in accordance with the HQ AMC automation 

i 

architecture. 

Concepts and Doctrine Division (U) 

(U) AMC Strategic Long-Range Plan (SLRP) . During FY85, AMC 
continued development of its first Strategic Long Range Plan. The 
draft plan, AMC Pamphlet 5-10, was fully staffed throughout the 
command and its implementing regulation, AMC-R 11-3, Vol. 2, was 
also drafted. In addition, in June 1985 the MSC Commanders were 
formally tasked to develop first drafts of their own SLRPs by 
December 1985. 2 

(U) Logistics Systems Program Review . The second and third 
updates of the Logistics Systems Program Review (LSPR) were held at 
the USA Logistics Center, Fort Lee, Virginia, 27 February and 3 
September 1985. They were hosted by the CG, Logistics Center and 
were designed to brief the VCSA on the latest TRADOC logistics 
improvement programs, both in doctrine and in materiel. Briefings 
were presented by the TRADOC schools. 

(U) The DCS for Readiness' Concepts and Doctrine Division was 
assigned responsibility within AMC for coordinating all AMC input to 
the LSPR and for monitoring the overall review. As such they 
prepared briefing books, which contained advance copies of the panel 



DCS for Readiness, FY85 AHR submission, Concepts and Doctrine Division. 

Ibid. 

Ibid. 



209 



briefings, together with AMC input, for the Deputy Commanding General 
for Materiel Readiness, the Deputy for Management and Analysis, and 
the DCSs for SMT and DEA. 4 

(U) AMCLOG 21 - The AMC Logistics (AMCLOG) Mission Area 
Analysis . The AMC Logistics 21 (AMCLOG 21) MAA was launched in FY84, 
but it was 17 January 1985 before the first tasking to the commodity 
commands and DESCOM was made. The program's aim was to locate 
deficiencies in the AMC Logistics Sustaining Base that would prevent 
AMC from providing the Army in the field with needed logistics 
support to the year 2002. The output of the MAA was to be an AMC 
Mission Area Development Plan (MADP), a single action document which 
would establish an audit trail, a time-phased program and a 
verifiable list of deficiencies. These would be used to provide 
input to the PARR, compete for funds in the PPBES process, provide 
input to RDA plans, and compete for Logistics R&D funding. 

(F0U0) Because of the size of the AMC mission, the first phase 
of the AMCLOG 21 MAA was limited to the high payoff logistic 
functions of supply, maintenance and transportation. Other functions 
such as facilities, procurement, production, automation and physical 
security would be considered only in so far as they related to those 
functional areas. This phase of the AMCLOG 21 MAA, basically a 
literature search of current studies, was completed 30 June 1985. The 
results of the Phase I effort were consolidated and prioritized into 
an AMC MADP which consisted of two volumes, published shortly after 
the end of the fiscal year. The first volume listed in some detail 
the 100 top deficiencies in AMC's ability to perform its mission, 
ranging from the most critical issue concern — the country's low level 
of industrial preparedness. The second volume tabulated all 
identified deficiencies, some 294 in all. 

(F0U0) Listed with the identified shortcomings were those 
actions AMC could take that were perceived to lead toward a remedy. 
Included among the high priority remedies were such items as: 
Funding the munitions production base to meet mobilization/surge; 
providing low production capability for fire control devices (lack of 
production capability for optical glass in the US); procure 
ammunition and weapons authorized acquisition objective shortfalls; 
include mission/operating software as a commodity (no system set 
up to handle software as a commodity); provide capability to meet 
production shortfalls in RDX/HMX (explosives); obtain critical 
raw materials; provide equipment requirements for depot supply 
mission; eliminate limitations of production capacity and 



4 Ibid. 

5 Ibid; For earlier details, see FY84 AHR. 



210 



responsiveness (due to failure to meet Environmental Protection Agency 

standards); provide safer and more efficient propellant 

production. 

(U) Phase II of the AMCLOG 21 MAA began 1 July 1985 and would 
be an in-depth analysis of AMC's capability to support the Army in 
the field both at the present time and as it evolved through the II MAA 
which was based on an AMSAA developed methodology and had a target 
completion date of 28 February 1986. 

(U) Technical Information Management System (TIMS) /Computer 
Aided Logistic Support (CALS) . TIMS was designed to be an automated 
data base of technical information which could be made available 
throughout the Army down to the operating level where it could be 
used to obtain technical information about a specific piece of 
equipment. In 1985 much of the activity concerning the TIMS program 
centered around the acquisition strategy which had been approved in 
FY 84. The CECOM TIMS Office had previously been given lead command 
responsibility for development, implementation and management of the 
TIMS network. During FY84, the mission was placed within 
the Center for Tactical Computers (CENTACS). Preprogrammed funds 
received during July 1984 allowed a task order to be placed with 
Computer Science Corporation for Phase IA of the TIMS architecture 
effort, contracting for data collection and analysis to establish a 
baseline of the state of technical data within the Army today. 

(U) Briefings were given throughout the year to acquaint the DA 
staff and others with the project in order to solicit support. 
Principal Army staff members briefed on the program included the DCS 
for Logistics, the DCS for Information Management, and the Director 
of Army Research and Technology (ODCSRDA) . On 24 September 1985, the 
Deputy Secretary of Defense issued a memorandum to all Military 
Services to implement a new program "Computer Aided Logistic Support 
(CALS)". DA Staff proponent was the DCS for Logistics; AMC lead for 
CALS was the Concepts and Doctrine Division, as designated by the DCG 
for Materiel Readiness. 

(U) Rationalization, Standardization and Interoperability (RSI) . 
During FY85, the Concepts and Doctrine Division participated in the 
NATO Land Force Logistics Working Party (LOGWP) and US-GE Supply, 
Maintenance and Transportation Working Group. In addition, technical 
support was provided to the senior US representative to the LOGWP. 
Participation in the LOGWP program and the US-GE logistics support 
forum focused on the analysis of problem areas and recommendations of 
solutions for implementing interoperability enhancements. Significant 
interoperability and standardization initiatives pursued included: 
Equipment Interoperability Matrices; NATO Recovery Procedures and 



211 



Recovery Data Publication; Identification of Problems of Transporting 
Ammunition Across the Boundaries of Two National Corps; and 
development of an Allied ammunition support publication. 

(U) The AMC-TRADOC Ammunition Interoperability Working Group 
developed ammunition interoperability and substitution matrices which 
were included in the Ordnance Missile and Munitions Schools, Program 
of Instruction (POI). AMC interoperability initiatives and 
objectives were achieved through active coordination and 
participation in US Army Workshops on Alliance Logistics, Army 
Headquarters of Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and Netherlands. The 
Supply and Maintenance Assessment Review Team (SMART) was also used 
as a vehicle to evaluate and implement materiel and non-materiel 
interoperability enhancements. Notable among the interoperability 
enhancements pursued in FY85 through the Supply and Maintenance 
Assessment review Team were: Tactical Robotic Support, 
Vehicle-Battle Damage Assessment and Repair (BDAR); Nickel Cadmium 
Battery Charger and Analyzer, and the Mobile Rail Loading Ramp (MLR). 

(U) Total Army Analysis (TAA) . The austere combat service 
support (CSS) force structure, resulting from the Army of Excellence 
initiatives, resulted in a need for a greater range of support from 
the wholesale logistics support base and AMC. Combat service support 
personnel who perform the functions of supply, maintenance, 
transportation, medical support, field services, and administrative 
support had been severely reduced to provide the personnel for 
increases in combat personnel. Although the TAA process structures 
the theater Army to perform all of its CSS mission workload, the lack 
of programed active, reserve component, host nation support (HNS) and 
contractor resources to accomplish the projected workload results in 
significant portions of the CSS force structure being assigned to the 
unresourced or "COMPO A" category. This shortfall was especially 
significant in the area of intermediate rear maintenance support. 
During wartime, shortfalls of heavy equipment maintenance (HEM)/light 
equipment maintenance (LEM) units and their HNS equivalents could 
generate maintenance overflow from the theater, thus requiring effort 
from other sources, including the CONUS base. From a doctrinal 
standpoint, AMC would be expected to assume responsibility for this 
overflow. It was therefore necessary to identify and quantify this 
overflow in order to begin planning to accommodate the influx of 
maintenance workload into the CONUS. Therefore, AMC used the TAA 
process not only as a vehicle to Input manpower requirements, but 
also as a basis for development of improved wholesale level concepts 
and doctrine for support of the Army in the field. One of these 
efforts was the Estimation of Shortfalls in Theater Intermediate 
Maintenance for AMC TAA Evaluation (ESTIMATE) study. 



212 



(U) As a matter of background, AR 71-11, Total Army Analysis 
(TAA), assigns AMC the responsibility to assess the impact of TAA 
combat service support force structure actions on the CONUS wholesale 
logistics base. This assessment is required in order to develop 
depot workload forecasts which would, in turn, be used as the basis 
for determination of mobilization manpower/storage space 
requirements, depot capabilities and development of MOBTDA's. 

(U) The scope of the ESTIMATE involved an analysis of workload 
shortfalls in Army intermediate maintenance units and quantification 
of this workload. The study was to be completed in January 1986 and 
would provide maintenance workload (by Military Occupational Specialty 
and Quantity) which may be applied to AMC's mobilization workload 
requirements. 

(U) Preconf igured Unit Load (PUL) . The Army has embarked on an 
aggressive near term force structure and design effort with the 
overall objective of providing an Army of Excellence (AOE) that makes 
the best possible use of available resources to meet the Army's 
varied missions. One such approach is the provision of routine 
resupply of selected expendable supplies by Preconf igured Unit Loads 
(PUL). 

(U) The overall concept for PUL envisioned assembly at the 
wholesale support level of predetermined quantities of selected 
expendable supplies, configured by function and type unit, packed in 
disposable containers or on standard pallets, and assigned a single 
National Stock Number, to be ordered by using units/organizations via 
single-line requisition. Four PUL configurations were to be developed 
and tested in FY86 in order to prove the concept, although after the 
successful testing other configurations would be added. Of the four 
PULs, three were to be provided by AMC while the Defense Logistic 
Agency (DLA) would provide the fourth. The AMC PULs were to consist 
of battalion size packages of administrative and housekeeping 
supplies containing 15 Days of Supply (DOS), sets of chemical 
protective clothing for 25 and 50 soldiers (including items such as 
shirts, pants, boots, gloves, etc.) configured in mixed sizes, and 
one hundred meters of hasty barrier materiel. 

(U) AMC was tasked to implement the PUL concept within the 
wholesale supply community. To accomplish this AMC developed a 
wholesale level operational concept for resupply by PUL to support 
the Army of Excellence and was working with the QMS, as lead DA 
activity, to provide this support during certification testing of the 
7th ID(L), currently scheduled for Jan - Aug 86. The PUL concept 
would be evaluated by TRADOC, including verification that the 



213 



methodology for determining contents of individual PULs is sound, and 
a determination as to whether the physical distribution system is 
capable of responding to division needs in a timely manner. 

(U) Upon completion of test, AMC intended to put the wholesale 
operational concept into its final form, incorporating 
recommendations from the Army community. Its final concept would be 
submitted for staffing throughout Army. 

Logistics Assistance Division (U) 

(U) MSC Readiness Directorates . In August 1984, in order to 
establish a program of "Focused Readiness," each MSC was directed to 
create from existing resources in April 1985 a single Readiness 
Directorate reporting to the MSC's Deputy Commanding General for 
Readiness and Procurement. Each Readiness Directorate was to consist 
of four divisions: logistics assistance; readiness analysis; policy, 
plans and programs; and force modernization integration. The new 
Readiness Directorates were to serve as the MSC's focal point for all 
readiness issues; identify equipment, units, and geographic regions 
with readiness problems; develop and execute corrective action plans; 
and become proactive concerning readiness. 

(U) In early 1985, the Readiness Directorates were established 
in the MSC's and approved by AMC with minor deviations in 
organizational structure due to unique MSC mission requirements. The 
1986 goals for Focused Readiness were to fine tune the readiness 
communities' networking and communications capabilities, enhance the 
readiness analysis capabilities, and begin to measure effectiveness. 

(U) Enhanced Materiel Readiness Reporting System (EMRRS) - AR 
700-138 . The Enhanced Materiel Readiness Reporting System was an AMC 
proposed and HQDA approved project that consolidated the three 
materiel readiness reporting systems, those directed by AR 95-33 on 
Aircraft Reporting, by AR 750-40 on Missile reporting, and by Chapter 
4 of DA PAM 738-750 on Ground Equipment into a single and 
comprehensive readiness reporting system and regulation (AR 700-138 
Logistics Readiness and Sustainability) . The new regulation was 
published 27 December 1985, and provided the soldier the necessary 
information, tools, and indicators required to manage the materiel 
readiness program at the unit level. The final phase of this 
initiative continued into FY86 and consisted of the development of a 
standard form for reporting the readiness of all commodities and the 
streamlining of the transmission process for readiness data by using 
the US Message Text Format. This was to be implemented in 1987. The 



Unless otherwise noted, all material on the Logistics Readiness 
Division is taken from the DCS for Readiness, FY85 AHR submission. 



214 



cumulative effect of these changes was to be the standardization of 
the US Army materiel readiness reporting process and a substantial 
reduction in the administrative processing and transmission time of 
readiness data prior to its availability for analysis. 

(U) Readiness Integrated Data Base (RIDB) . The RIDB network 
expansion was a Readiness initiative that provided the MSCs with 
secure remote access to RIDB which was a Materiel Readiness Support 
Activity managed and maintained central repository for materiel 
readiness data and reports. The network expansion was to provide the 
MSCs with the ability to remotely retrieve, through secure ADP and 
communications equipment, materiel readiness data on a real time 
basis. Planned software enhancements in conjunction with the real 
time and on-line capability would allow the MSCs to immediately 
query and display readiness data in a wide variety of formats, as 
well as provide unique analysis capabilities. 

(U) The ADP and communications equipment was acquired and 
shipped to the MSCs in 1985, with installation and implementation 
planned for early 1986. When completed, this would substantially 
improve the MSCs capabilities and timeliness for readiness analysis, 
thereby allowing them to become proactive on readiness issues. 

(U) Readiness Offensive . Closely linked to the RIDB was the 
Readiness Offensive, a program that was initiated to stimulate the 
AMC readiness community into identifying problem areas and focusing 
AMC resources to fix systemic problems, monitor progress, and 
continually refine the readiness analysis process. Special products 
provided by AMCs Materiel Readiness Support Activity were being 
provided to each MSC; however, the direct access to RIDB by all MSCs 
was expected to greatly enhance this initiative. The RIDB terminals 
would allow each MSC to perform specialized analysis on-line and in 
real time. This allowed the MSCs to identify specific target Line 
Item Numbers (LIN) that had not performed according to the DA 
standard, query the data base for information, and develop action 
plans to improve their performance. This readiness initiative would 
standardize the readiness analysis process and provide AMC the 
ability to monitor equipment readiness by MSCs targeted LIN's, as 
well as aggregate MSC data to determine program success. The 
iterative process and the feedback nature manifest the evolutionary 
and long term aspects of this effort since performance trends were 
more important than information for any one reporting period. 

(U) Resources To Readiness . In 1985, AMC conducted a study of 
the relationship of the availability of resources to Army readiness. 
A preliminary finding of the study indicated that weapon systems with 
high wholesale level stock availability rule readiness rates. Further 
analysis of this relationship was conducted in two phases. Phase I, 



215 



completed in Spring 1985, was performed by the Readiness Analysis 
Branch of AMC. It consisted of determining through regression 
analysis and correlation techniques, whether Not Mission Capable 
Supply (NMCS) readiness rates were related to wholesale level stock 
availability. This phase of the study concluded that a statistically 
sound relationship between wholesale level stock availability and 
NMCS readiness rates could not be determined because of numerous 
unquantif iable variables that impacted readiness rates, and that 
intensive management efforts at wholesale and retail levels for 
commodities in short supply could counteract the negative effects of 
short supply on NMCS readiness rates. 

(U) Phase II of the study was being conducted by the Inventory 
Research Office (IRO). It used an analytical model to estimate the 
impact of wholesale level stock availability on NMCS. This phase of 
the study was being conducted via the Selected Essential-Item for 
Availability Method (SESAME). 

(^) Ad Hoc Special Studies . Periodically, special independent 
studies were conducted for items of equipment or weapon systems that 
appeared to have readiness problems. The AMC Field Artillery Systems 
Independent Assessment (FASIS) was conducted by the Deputy Chief of 
Staff for Readiness in the latter part of 1984. The identification 
and augmentation of corrective actions extended into early 
1985. The study reviewed the adequacy of corrective measures 
implemented to improve spare parts support posture and to determine 
why supportability problems were occurring, assessed get well plans, 
and captured lessons learned. The end result of this comprehensive 
assessment of the TACFIRE, BCS, and FIREFINDER systems was expected 
to pay great dividends in the future and would allow the Army to 
continue the fielding process, provide customer satisfaction and 
sustain the readiness of fielded systems. 

(U) ADEA Mission Changes . In July 85, the ARSTAF began a review 
of the ADEA charter which resulted in the expansion of the ADEA 
mission to encompass expeditious development of materiel for all 
configurations of Army forces. The expanded ADEA charter was 
redrafted, extending ADEA functions to the development and evaluation 
of operational concepts, materiel requirements, training 
developments, tactics and organizations for the broad range of 
scenarios applicable to general purpose, light and heavy forces, 
Special Operations Forces (SOF) and Low Intensity Conflict (LIC). 

(U) AMC continued to support ADEA and its missions through an 
on-site, AMC Support Activity (AMC-SA) at Ft. Lewis, Washington, which 
provided ADEA access to technical expertise and materiel contracting 
and procurement capability. 



216 



(U) Logistic Assistance Program (LAP) . In 1985 a number of 
major initiatives were underway to improve the LAP and to improve 
Army and AMC readiness. 

(U) Perhaps the most visible AMC element that interfaced with 
the field soldier was the AMC Logistic Assistance Program, AMC's 
customer service organization. AMC had 51 Logistic Assistance 
Offices (LAO) throughout the world, headed by officers and DA 
civilians, located at MACOM and installation level. About 200 
civilians and soldiers guide and integrate the logistic efforts of 
about 1000 MSC civilian Logistic Assistance Representatives (LAR) . 
The LAR's were stationed from installation level down through 
battalion and selected company level worldwide. These LAP members 
provided advice and assistance to soldiers on a daily basis on all 
facets of logistics, facilitated AMC logistic support to the field, 
and accompanied their soldier customers on major JCS and regional 
exercises. 

(U) Overall LAP effectiveness was targeted for specific 
improvement. A Semi-annual Emphasis Program was established to focus 
the entire LAP to improve specific items of AMC/Army interest. A LAP 
manpower requirements determination model was developed and would be 
tested in 1986 in order to better justify and assign scarce 
personnel resources to assist the soldier. Support to MACOM/CINC 
operations plans was substantially improved, as was LAP support to 
JCS and regional exercises. Increased numbers of Individual 
Mobilization Augmentees were used throughout the LAP to prepare them 
for mobilization duties. A LAP Redefinition Program was developed to 
improve LAP communications, clarify roles, and establish formal 
mechanisms to promulgate goals and objectives. Other programs were 
being developed to provide the LAP with an automation capability, to 
improve communications, and to provide a LAR activity reporting 
system to link LAR activity with installation unit readiness 
performance. 

(U) On 11 January 1985, the CG, AMC directed an analysis of the LAP 
program and structure. In March of 1985 the program was briefed 
to the CG. The CG's decision on restructure was provided to the 
field in late May 1985. A provisional reorganization was to be 
effective 1 Nov 1985. This restructuring would realign the LAP on a 
regional basis without regard to command boundaries. It also 
resulted in a further assertion of HQ AMC influence over the LAP. 
These results were accomplished by implementation of the following: 

a. Restructuring the seven major command oriented offices 
into four geographically oriented offices: LAO-FAR EAST, 
LAO-PACIFIC, LAO CONUS and LAO EUROPE. 



217 



b. Implementation of AMC-wide uniform performance elements 
for all Logistic Assistance Representative (LAR) appraisals. 

c. Establishment of LAO input to LAR career appraisals. 

Taken together, these actions resulted in a substantially improved AMC 
customer service organization. 

Military Plans and Operations Division 

(U) The Military Plans and Operations Division is covered in the 
classified section of the FY85 AHR submission in the HO AMC HO archives 

DCS for Supply, Maintenance and Transportation (U) 

Reorganization (U) 

(U) On 1 May 1985, concurrent with Brigadier General Bill J. 
Stalcup's assumption of the position of DCS for Supply, Maintenance 
and Transportation, the DCS was reorganized in an effort to realign 
manpower into better defined mission areas. In the reorganization 
several large divisions were reduced in size in an effort to prevent 
the overlapping of duties and responsibilities. The reorganization 
had several advantages, achieving a better balance in division size 
and span of control, while attaining a better ratio between clerical 
and professional personnel. National Inventory Control Point (NICP) 
functions were consolidated by realignment of redundant areas. Lines 
of communication were streamlined. Integrated logistics support and 
maintenance engineering support merged into one division. Creation 
of separate vehicle and troop support divisions reduced the 
complexity of the Command, Control, Surveillance and Support System 
Division. Item management policy now came under one division. 
Performance evaluations were performed by mission area. Functional 
coordination for automation was moved to the appropriate mission 
areas. 

Maintenance and Integrated Logistic Support Division (U) 

(U) Division Created . As part of the 1 May 1985 
reorganization, two branches of the Integrated Logistics Support and 
Data Management Division were combined with three branches of the 
Maintenance Division to form the new Maintenance and Integrated 
Logistic Support Division. Two residual functions of the previous 
Maintenance Division went to other organizations. Publication policy 
was transferred to the DCS for Information Management while the depot 



DCS for Supply, Maintenance and Transportation, FY85 AHR submission, HQ, 
AMC. Additional coverage of the reorganization will be found below as 
divisions are discussed individually. In many instances, actions taken 
by this DCS concerned specific weapon systems and are discussed in the 
Force Modernization Chapter. The Force Modernization Integration 
Division coverage is entirely within that chapter. 



218 



maintenance functions were transferred to SMT's Depot Operations 
Division. In this AHR, Integrated Logistics Support topics will be 
covered primarily in the Force Modernization chapter. 

(U) New Equipment Training Plan Automation . In FY83 the 
decision to automate the New Equipment Training Plan (NETP) process 
was made at DA. The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations, 
Logistics and Financial Management) signed the mission needs 
statement in March 1984. The project manager charter was issued in March 
1985. The system in development was to include both new and 
displaced equipment training needs. It would further link NET 
planners worldwide and reduce the need for Training Support Working 
Group meetings. Full operability was anticipated by the first 
quarter of FY86. 9 

(U) Sample Data Collection Program . The Sample Data Collection 
(SDC) program expanded during FY85, becoming increasingly important 
in measuring performance of fielded equipment. No other source 
provided data of sufficient accuracy and detail to allow such 
measurement. Initiatives by Army leadership increased the use of SDC 
data in support programs, the budget process, manpower programs, and 
logistics studies for all Army intensively managed systems. Under 
SDC the equipment proponent develops an SDC plan, field procedures 
guide, and a draft DA circular. The Maintenance and Integrated 
Logistics Support Division of DCS SMT reviewed and approved each SDC 
plan submitted by MSCs and began a revision of the AMC supplement to 
AR 750-37 following revision by DA DCSLOG of the Army regulation to 
clarify the expanding role of SDC and to obtain better control over 
the program. 

(U) In the annual Army-wide review of all completed, ongoing, 
and planned SDC programs, completed in September 1985, viability of 
the SDC program was substantiated. The review panel of General 
Officers and SES personnel was chaired by the AMC Commander and 
included representatives from each AMC MSC. The annual summary 
report of SDC programs and benefits went out on a worldwide 
distribution to all concerned Army activities. A special effort was 
being made to "market" SDC — to enhance its acceptability and assure 
enhanced feedback and cooperation with participating units. 
Distribution of a semiannual newsletter was undertaken, and SDC 
articles developed by the MSCs appeared in Air Defense , Aviation , 
RD&A, TransLog, and Logistician magazines. 



8 

9 

10 

11 



DCS for Supply, Maintenance and Transportation, FY85 AHR submission, HQ 

AMC. 

Ibid. 

Ibid. 

Ibid. 



219 



(U) Among the program benefits realized during FY85, data was 
provided for studies in the following areas: the Authorized Stockage 
Level/Prescribed Load List (ASL/PLL) program and budget, Manpower 
Allocations Requirements Criteria (MARC), MANPRINT, warranty, safety, 
and TWVULDP. SDC data was also used for hardware changes as well as 
changes in technical manuals; they impacted Product Improvement 
Program and Engineering Change Proposals. Reliability, Availability, 
and Maintainability (RAM) analysis and other system assessments were 
affected. SDC helped determine how far an aircraft could be flown 
through the MAX-FLY program as well as how far a wheeled vehicle may 
be driven throughout the Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Useful Life 
Determination Program (TWULDP). The CSA lessons learned initiative 
and tank fleet O&S studies drew on SDC data. 12 

(U) During FY85, SDC program data was being collected on some 
60 weapons systems at 13 sites in the continental U.S. (CONUS) and 35 
sites outside CONUS. Some 43 systems were being considered for inclusion 
during the FY86-90 time frame. Such day-to-day reporting was 
augmented by Field Exercise Data Collection (FEDC) programs to assess 
performance during simulated combat activities. FEDC programs in 
Europe and at the National Training Center (NTC) in California were 
augmented in FY85 by initiation of a program in Korea. Plans were 
also underway for similar programs in WESTCOM and Central America. 
Unit data collection was also being evaluated, and integrated systems 
collection (TR0SC0M and CECOM) were initiated at four locations. 13 

(U) Ongoing actions in SDC at the conclusion of FY85 included 
provision of data useful to updating training courses and 
participation of SDC personnel in planning meetings for such 
automated systems as the Materiel Acquisition Management System 
(MAMS) and the Standard Army Maintenance System (SAMS) to assure 
timely integration of SDC. A five-year SDC plan had been developed and 
was being brought current, along with an array of reports, 
distribution lists and the like in an effort to assure valid, useful 
and timely SDC information. Quarterly working group meetings between 
HQ AMC and MSC SDC managers were held during the year. 14 

(U) Oil Analysis Program . The Army Oil Analysis Program 
(AOAP), dating from 1961 but coupled with the tri-Service Joint Oil 
Analysis Program (JOAP) in 1980 enjoyed success in FY85 with the 
successful development of a diagnostic procedure for the AH-1 



12 Ibid. 



13 Ibid. Conversation with Edwin Vaughan, January 8, 1987. 

DCS for Supply, Maintenance and Transportation, FY85 AHR submission, 
HQ, AMC. 



220 



helicopter. The AOAP project manager in conjunction with the US 
Army Aviation Development Test Activity, Fott Rucker, Alabama, the 
JOAP-TSC, and the Corpus Christ! Army Depot used ferrographic 
analysis of the Cobra's swashplate grease to detect wear metals and 
pending swashplate failures. 

(U) Other items of equipment on which considerable work was 
expended during the year were the M60-A3 tank and the BLACKHAWK. 
PM-AOAP contributed to improved air filteration for the tank 
engine and, tasked by the Blackhawk Special Task Force, contributed 
to an assessment of that item's transmission and gearboxes. 

(U) The PM-AOAP conducted field testing of new and modified 
software for the AOAP laboratories' Wang stand-alone computers. 
Following the test, the updated software was installed in 
laboratories Army wide. A team from PM-AOAP installed the WANG 
minicomputer in the Anniston Army Depot oil analysis laboratory, 
beginning the automation of all the depot oil analysis laboratories, 
a process that was to be completed during FY86 . 

(U) Reliability Centered Maintenance . A variety of actions 
were taken as part of the Army's reliability centered maintenance 
(RCM) program. As new Depot Maintenance Work Orders (DMWO) were 
developed during the year, a total of 219, existing DMWOs continued 
to be scrubbed. During the year the number of scrubbed DMWOs grew 
by 17 to 69 such since the start of the DOD-mandated effort in 1976. 
The DMWOs set forth the procedures for the teardown of equipment 
sent in for maintenance. Under the RCM approach, such techniques as 
preshop analysis to determine the level of teardown actually required 
by the piece of equipment being overhauled were inserted, the 
objective being to avoid unneeded work, reducing the cost of 
maintenance while retaining equipment reliability. Under a combat 
vehicle evaluation program (CVE), for instance, prior mileage 
criteria for overhaul of combat vehicles were eliminated; approved by 
DCSLOG, the sixth CVE evaluation cycle started in October 1984 and 
was completed in September 1985. 

(U) A cumulative total of 737 Technical Manuals and Lubrication 
Orders, 244 during FY85, were reviewed by the MSCs under the 
provisions of DA Pamphlet 750-40, Guide to Reliability Centered 
Maintenance (RCM) for Fielded Equipment. This pamphlet set forth the 



15 



16 
17 
18 



Ibid. Problems with Army aircraft engines and transmissions were the 

original incentive for the AOAP, launched with help from the Navy Oil 

Analysis Program, then already in existence. 

Ibid. 

Ibid. 

Ibid. See also, FY84 AHR. 



221 



criteria to be used to determine the mode of maintenance of specific 
parts of a system, i.e., whether it should be performed by replacing 
parts that failed, by periodic inspections, by monitoring performed 
by the operator, or by replacing parts at fixed intervals of time or 
usage. A final option, considered only in situations where the 
failure of a component could lead to mission failure, safety hazard, 
or violation of regulation or statute (e.g. a violation of pollution 
laws) and where the failure could neither be detected in advance nor 
prevented by periodic replacement, was redesign of equipment. * 

(U) During FY85, the Army Logistics Management Center (LMC) 
conducted two on-site training courses on RCM. 

(U) Maintenance Expenditure Limits . Maintenance expenditure 
limits (METs) were used to determine if repair of an item was 
economical or if it should be replaced. In May 1983, a Defense Audit 
Service (DAS) report showed that the depot MELs used by all three 
Services could not be justified and were not adequately managed. As 
a result, in the Summer of 1983 a project was begun to develop new 
policies and procedures for managing the MEL at all levels of 
maintenance. In October 1985 AMC submitted to HQDA proposed policy 
changes on MEL for inclusion into AR-750-1, Army Materiel Maintenance 
Concepts and Procedures. An AMC pamphlet on determining and managing 
the MEL at depots was scheduled for completion in 1986. 

(U) Contractor Support of Logistics . In February 1985 AMC 
submitted a draft regulation, AR 700-xx, on Contractor Support of 
Logistics for Weapon Systems and Equipment. It was returned to AMC 
in March to be reformatted into the new UPDATE format being used for 
regulations, and AMC returned a reformatted version in September. ^ 

(U) AMC Maintenance Board . As a result of a CG, AMC 
initiative, the AMC Maintenance Board (AMCMB) was established under 
the chairmanship of the DCS for Supply, Maintenance, and 
Transportation in FY84, but held its first meeting in October 1985, 
with members consisting of Directors of Maintenance and Materiel 
Management of the MSCs and Chiefs of Maintenance and Supply 
Divisions of DCSSMT. It planned on four or five meetings per year as 
forums for presenting subjects of mutual interest and reaching 
decisions to resole critical Issues. 



*" DCS for Supply, Maintenance and Transportation, FY85 AHR submission, 
and FY8A AHR, HQ, AMC. 

20 DCS for Supply Maintenance and Transportation, FY85 AHR submission, HQ, 
AMC. 

21 Ibid. 

22 Ibid. 



222 



(U) Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Useful Life Program . In April 
1982 the House Armed Services Committee requested a comprehensive 
study to determine when it was economically desirable to replace a 
vehicle. Proceeding on schedule, the first interim report due to the 
committee was submitted 30 March 1984 on the basis of seven months of 
data. The second interim report was submitted a year later, and 
unlike the first report presented certain conclusions. The third 
interim report, due in March 1986, was expected to be followed by the final 
report in December of that year. The TWVULP model is expected to 
have applications with other groups of equipment. 

(U) Electrostatic Discharge . In FY85 AMC was acting on the 
problem of destruction of printed circuit boards by static 
electricity. This had a negative effect on readiness and, in some 
applications, presented hazards to personnel. LABCOM was assigned 
overall responsibility to lead and coordinate various efforts to 
solve the problem. Several guidance documents were published by 
AMC's Packing, Storage, and Containerization Center (PSCC), and CECOM 
was also studying possible solutions in the logistics area. ^ 

(U) Modification Application Program . Modification of items 
already in the Army inventory continued to be carried out through 
Modification Work Orders. In FY85 a total of 63,391 modifications 
were applied to various pieces of Army and Army National Guard 
equipment. 5 

(U) In June 1985 the CG issued a Commander's Guidance Statement 
which stressed the need to follow an orderly program course of MWO 
improvements for fielded equipment as an alternative to new 
development. An annual review of modification work orders for CONUS 
and USAREUR equipment was completed prior to the holding of 
coordination workshops in Huntsville, Alabama, and Zweibrueken, 
Germany, an approach followed successfully in FY84 as well. In 
addition, the worldwide POC directory for MWO was updated and 
distributed in time for the workshops. ' 



23 
24 
25 
26 



Ibid. 

Ibid. 

Ibid. 

CG, AMC, Commander's Guidance Statement No. 92, Modification Work Order 

Program Management, 27 Jun 85. 



27 

DCS for Supply, Maintenance and Transportation, FY85 AHR submission, 

HQ, AMC. 



223 



(U) Supply and Maintenance Assessment Review Team . SMART 
continued Its role of improving unit level logistics by promoting, 
evaluating, and implementing suggested changes from field units 
relative to combat service support. The SMART program in FY85 drew 
more suggestions in FY85 than it had in Its first three years 
combined. In all, 4,058 ideas or suggestions were received, 2,048 of 
which required evaluation by the AMC community, notably the Material 
Readiness Support Activity in Lexington, Kentucky, the AMC action 
office for such evaluations. AMC continued its representation on 
the SMART review council, chaired by the DCSLOG, and including 
representatives from TRADOC, F0RSC0M, and the 24th Infantry Division 
as well. The DCSSMT was the AMC representative. 28 

(U) Recent SMART initiatives included the introduction of 
tactical wheeled vehicle windshield component parts into the supply 
system instead of just stocking assemblies. The change was expected 
to save $2.3 million per year, and earned the suggester an award of 
$14,500 from the suggestion program. Another initiative, one expected 
to save $1.6 million annually, was changing the requirement for 
engine run-ups on helicopters from seven to 15 days. Overall, FY85 
SMART savings amounted to over $4.8 million. 

(U) Equipment Improvement Recommendation (EIR) Program . Under 

the EIR program and use of SF 368, the Quality Deficiency Report, 

users of Army equipment have a means to report equipment faults and 

proposed improvements to the responsible commodity commands. In FY85 

a simplified EIR reporting system was adopted and published in the 

December 1984 issue of DA Pamphlet 738-750, The Army Maintenance 

Management System. The significant change was a prioritization of 

reporting information to prompt users to extend the effort required 

to get information essential to evaluation of the submission while 

30 
excusing completion of other blocks. 

(U) Differentiated from the more recent SMART initiatives in 
that it keyed specifically on equipment design, EIR was itself 
heavily promoted. Among these efforts were two articles on EIR 
published in PS Magazine in November and December 1984, the first 
discussing when SF 368 should be submitted and the second explaining 
the minimum essential data required. A handbook developed by MRSA and 
published first in July 1984 contained "how and why" information on 
submission of EIRs. It proved so popular during the year that a 
second edition was published in July 1985 to satisfy the demand. In 
June 1985, an EIR "Problem Solver" poster was developed to provide 
item by item guidance for the simplified use of SF 368 in a single 

28 Ibid. 

29 Ibid. 

30 Ibid. 



224 



graphic display. A block of instruction on EIR submission was 
developed by the Army Management Engineering Training Activity 
(AMETA) with help from the AMC maintenance community for use with 
AMETA's User Reporting course, given five times in FY85. A training 
film on the EIR process was also in production. 

Automated Systems Integration Division (U) 

(U) Logistics Systems Revie w Commit tee. As a result of efforts 
initiated in June 1984 to manage all the "information requirements of 
AMC, existing review committees having jurisdiction over resource, 
acquisition, and logistic management were brought under the purview 
of a Command Review Council, a high level group whose principal 
members were the Deputy for Management and Analysis, the Principal 
Assistant Deputy for Research, Development and Acquisition, the 
Assistant Deputy for Materiel Readiness, and the Deputy Chief of 
Staff for Resource Management. The DCS for Information Management 
also served with the group to provide technical support as the 
Command's automation/communications systems builder. The Logistics 
Systems Review Council (LSRC), which oversaw such systems as the 
Commodity Command Standard System (CCSS), broadened its base with 
logistics acquisition assignments under LOGAMP, and its secretariat 
was given responsibility for supporting the the CRC and for 
integration of plans and concepts that make up the command-wide 
information master plan. 

(U) The LSRC held a number of meetings in FY85 to approve the 
progress of various improvements to the standard software used in 
supply and maintenance management in AMC. On 11 September 1984 HQ 
AMC hosted a meeting on the Maintenance Data Management System 
(MDMS), an ambitious extension of the CCSS. CECOM had test 
prototyped MDMS, an updated system to replace the Army Maintenance 
Management Data Exchange (AMMDEX) and non-standard local systems used 
to manage depot-level hardware maintenance programs. MDMS would 
interface with finance and accounting, provide automated fund 
certification, and access existing procurement systems to provide 
automated procurement work directives. Proliferation of the system 
to the other MSCs was approved by the LSRC in FY85 to provide the 
first AMC-wide standard system for programming, budgeting, and 
managing execution of maintenance support activities. 



31 DA Poster 750-84, June 1985. 

-JO » 

DCS for Supply, Maintenance and Transportation, FY85 AHR submission, 
HQ, AMC. 
33 Ibid. 



225 



(U) Other system packages on which LSRC took action included 
Releases 68-70 for CCSS. Release 68 in-process review (IPR) I was 
hosted by ALMSA 4 October 1984. Division level and third party test 
results justified movement of the update to AMCCOM for prototype. The 
Committee also approved the immediate proliferation of "Deploy 4S", 
pre-prototyped at MICOM, to all MSCs. Release 68 IPR II was hosted 
by AMCCOM on 4 December 1984, at which time proliferation to all MSCs was 
approved. Also at the December meeting, CECOM was given prototype 
responsibility for a special release. 

(U) At the Release 69 IPR I at ALMSA 2 May 1985, LSRC approved 
prototyping at TACOM. Prior to the IPR II at TACOM 13 June 1985, the 
release was proliferated through the MACOMs as of 23 May, approval 
being garnered by messages to and from the committee members. ^ 

(U) A special LSRC meeting on 26 June 1985 at HQ, AMC 
initiatives affecting MDMS and the Command Automated System for 
Procurement (CASPR) were discussed along with prioritization of the 
Information Management Plan (IMP) initiatives. The list of "near 
term" automation projects and initiatives surfacing at this meeting 
were carried forward for discussion at a further meeting 2 July 
1985. 36 

(U) At the Release 70 IPR held 18 September 1985, prototyping 

at AVSCOM was approved. Most of Release 70 was designed to solve 

problems resulting from the separation of TSARCOM into AVSCOM and 

TR0SC0M and the inability of the CCSS to handle collocated commands 

with common hardware, software, and master files. Through 

development of the Single Process Integrated Files (SPIF) ^ 

modifications in Release 70 the standard system would have the 

ability to support multiple commands using a single execution of 

processes and applications with integrated files, queues, and 

databases. Proliferation of the Automated Autodin Interface also 

37 
gained approval at the meeting. 

(U) A MC Near Term Initiatives . In FY84 the LSRC secretariate 
had developed a near-term automation project/initiatives package which 
was approved by the CG, AMC. On 16 November 1984, a prioritized 
package setting forth AMC's automation requirements from FY85 to FY91 
was sent to the Office of the Under Secretary of the Army. This 



34 

35 
36 

37 



Ibid. For more on the various system changes, see LSRC minutes 

maintained by AMCSM-PA. 

Ibid. 

Ibid. 

Ibid. 



226 



package was also used in the FY87-91 Program Analysis Resource 
Review (PARR), an Automation Program Development Increment Package 
being established as a result. 

(U) S tandard Automated Systems Master Plan . STAMP was intended 
by the LSRC secretariat to be used as the LSRC master automation 
planning document for AMC standard systems. It was developed for use 
by headquarters and supporting agencies in developing logistics 
automation requirements for the Command Operating Budget (COB) and 
PARR. It was planned that STAMP would itself be automated as part of 
the HQ AMC Master Automation Plan. ' 

(U) Major Item Data Base . During FY85, AMC submitted a mission 
element needs statement and other required documentation for a secure 
network ADP system, a major Class III ADP project to support all 
major item systems, including such VCSA-directed initiatives as the 
Army decision support system and Documentation Modernization 
(DOCMOD) . The project was put together so that it would fit into and 
support DA and AMC weapons plans for the 1990s and beyond. At 
year end, the project was in the hands of the senior functional policy 
official at DA, the ultimate approval authority. 

(U) Total Army Equipment Distribution Program - Modernization . 
On a smaller scale, the major item distribution system at DESCOM, 
Total Army Equipment Distribution Program (TAEDP), was well advanced 
into a modernization of hardware and software. The aim of the 
TAEDP-MOD program was to provide the stand-alone transaction-fed 
major item data base with interactive inquiry capability, reduce 
computer runtime, and otherwise enhance management capability. 

(U) War Reserve Automated Process . WRAP was developed by AMC 
to provide a standard automated capability to compute war reserve 
requirements for Class I-IV, VIII, and IX items of supply. In FY85, 
the system development and testing for WRAP was completed. The 
program was used to compute the FY87 war reserve requirements for 
secondary items. 

(U) As an extension of WRAP, AMC started development of a 
Logistics Planning/Sustainability Automated Process for computing 
requirements for LOGPLAN (Logistics Planning), OMNIBUS/ALA (Omnibus 



38 
39 

40 
41 
42 
43 



Ibid. 

Ibid. 

Ibid. 

Ibid. 

FY84 AHR, HQ, AMC. 

DCS for Supply, Maintenance and Transportation, FY85 AHR submission, 

HQ, AMC. 



227 



Army Logistics Assessment), and ARES (Army Readiness Evaluation 
System). The requirements would be generated by use of the 
methodologies developed for WRAP. In FY85, the USA Materiel Systems 
Analysis Activity (AMSAA) completed development of further automation 
concepts along these lines. 

(U) Logisti cs Data Network Prototype . LOGNET developments 
continued at TRW in FY85, and work on such system enhancements as 
MOBERS, Artificial Intelligence, the Class IX timing study, and 
technical improvements to the menu screen were completed. The LOGNET 
Government Acceptance Test was completed in the first quarter of FY85 
and both the TRW and Teledyne Brown Engineering contracts were 
extended during the year. The MOBERS enhancements were installed and 
the MOBERS Government Acceptance Test was completed in the third 
quarter of FY85 while its Demonstration and Evaluation Test was begun 
in the same quarter. The LOGNET draft functional description was 
completed and sent for staffing in the fourth quarter of the fiscal 
year . -* 

Maintenance Inter s ervice Support Management Office (MISMO) (U) 

(U) Interservice policies and procedures on depot maintenance 
were controlled through the Joint Logistics Commanders and the Joint 
Policy Coordinating Group on Depot Maintenance operating through 
MISMO. 

Depot Operat io ns Division (U) 

(U) OMA Funding . Among other tasks, the Depot Operations 
Division managed OMA funding for the DCS SMT. This included P7S 
program elements relating to such concerns as packaging, storage, 
depot automation, and transportation, P3 program elements related to 
secure data transmission, and P7M program elements related to 
materiel maintenance and support. FY85 Obligations (in thousands of 
dollars) were as follows in these P7S and P3 AMCSM-Managed depot 
programs:^" 



44 Ibid. 

45 Ibid. 

46 Ibid. 



228 



Account 



Direct 



Reimbursable Total 



PE 


721111 


Supply Depot Ops 


$576,876 


$21,460 


$598,336 


PE 


72112 


Supply Mgt Ops 


206,467 


59,252 


265,719 


PE 


722829.1 


Program/Project Mgt 


83,322 


7,130 


90,452 


PE 


722809 


First Dest Trans 


46,744 


4,455 


51,199 


PE 


728010 


Second Dest Trans 


58,105 


2,665 


60,770 


PE 


728012.2 


Demilitarization 


97,203 


1,519 


98,722 


PE 


728013 


Overseas Port Activ 


467 





467 






Total P7S 1 


.,069,184 


96,481 


1,265,665 


PE 


381011 


Crypto Activity 


2,834 





2,834 


PE 


393401 


Comm Security 


19,667 


715 


20,382 



Total P3 



22,501 



715 



23,216 



(U) A number of these program elements had 
shortfalls. In PE 721111, Supply Depot Operation 
activities of shipping and receiving at the depot 
but there were funding shortfalls in other areas 
and rewarehousing. In addition, In FY85 the depo 
workyear ceiling and a cap on the dollars used to 
As a result the depots were considered to be over 
limited hiring freeze was imposed. These limitat 
depot mission accomplishments other than shipping 



significant 
s, the high priority 
s were fully funded, 
such as inventory 
ts operated under a 

pay for workyears. 
strength and a 
ions also restricted 

and receiving. ' 



(U) In PE 728009 and 728919, first and second destination 
transportation funds, a significant shortfall in TACOM's first 
destination transporation funds was met by internal reprogramming and 
by additional funding from HQDA. PE 728012.2, demilitarization, 
suffered from a low priority and consequently had large unfunded 
requirements. Serious deficiencies were disclosed during the year in 
the demil and stockpile management, including major problems with 
storage of hazardous items and lack of proper accountability and 
control of demil assets. Recommendations to correct the deficiencies 



were to be implemented in FY86. 



48 



(U) In the P7M area, the total FY85 program was $2,204 billion. 
The Depot Maintenance Overhaul/Conversion Program, PE 732207, 
accounted for nearly three-quarters of this amount, or $1,586 
billion, up from $1,276 billion in FY84 due to increased expenditures 
related to the UH-1 helicopter, the M113 TOW program, 
communications/electronics, and the Hawk and Chaparral missiles. y 



47 
48 
49 



Ibid. 
Ibid. 
Ibid. 



229 



(U) Also part of the P7M area was PE 738017, Maintenance 
Support Activities, which ended the year costing $617.8 million. In 
FY85, emphasis within this program was on the sample data collection 
programs, the warranty program, technical assistance for new systems, 
and PIP engineering for M55 Rocket assessment, a mid-life PIP for the 
MHO howitzer, and the UH-1 helicopter's mast bumping problem. 

(U) DESCOM's management of national overhaul contracts for all 
MSCs came under examination as the alternative of having each MSC 
manage its own contracts underwent testing with MICOM as the 
prototype. At year end, the test was continued and proliferation 
to the other MSCs delayed so that a full-year evaluation could be 
made, including year-end close-out. Also, the delay would allow time 
for essential system changes to be made for the Maintenance Data 
Management System (MDMS). CECOM was developing the MDMS changes, and 
the prototype system was unable to handle the year-end close out 
automatically; the changes being made appeared to solve the problems 
so that proliferation of the system could occur to the other MSCs in 
FY86 51 

(U) Packaging . The AMC Packaging, Storing, and 
Containerization Center (AMCPSCC), located at Tobyhanna Army Depot, 
again looked at the world of Army packaging in FY85. In its review 
of industry, the study found that there were no new packaging 
initiatives which would have an immediate impact on the Army. As a 
group, industry was found to be increasingly reluctant to spend R&D 
dollars on packaging without some assurance of a payoff. Their 
adamant viewpoint was that design-oriented DOD packaging requirements 
kill breakthroughs that might occur if requirements were instead 
performance oriented. Problems associated with commercial packaging 
required consideration of relying instead on military levels of 
protection. 

(U) The study also identified a need for more training of 
active duty military and civilian employees at troop installations 
involved with packaging. Enlisted personnel in the supply career 
management field were found in need of additional formal training in 
packaging, and those so trained should be given an additional skill 
identifier to enable their assignment to units having packaging 
missions. Another conclusion was that there were inadequate numbers 
and distribution of mobile preservation and packing shops as well as 
general and direct support units worldwide. Packaging was an element 
said to need greater emphasis in the up-front ILS process during 



50 
51 
52 



Ibid. 
Ibid. 
Ibid. 



230 



development. Also critiqued, administrative and procedural 
bottlenecks were found to arise from often conflicting packaging 

CO 

publications and data processing systems. J 

(U) Performance oriented packaging (POP) was making inroads in 
FY85 in other than logistics studies. A recommendation by the United 
Nations Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods for 
a POP approach for hazardous materials was to be implemented by all 
signatory countries, including the US. In May 1985, the DOD Joint 
Packaging Coordinating Group (JPCG) established a joint working group 
to identify and recommend solutions for problems arising out of 
implementing the UN recommendations. Compliance with the UN-backed 
program would serve unencumbered movement of DOD hazardous materials. 
Early work by the group included development of a charter, a 
glossary, and a preliminary test approach. Also other government 
committees and agencies were contacted for appropriate 
coordination. Implementation of the POP approach in this area for 
all modes of transportation was anticipated by the end of the 
decade. ^ 

(U) In another significant effort involving hazardous 
materials, AMCPSCC completed Phase I of a project to develop and 
field an automated system to identify all hazardous materials in the 
Army logistics system. This was an extensive review of all 
regulations, systems, controls, and on-going programs covering 
hazardous materials. Following this review, AMCPSCC proposed, and 
HQ, AMC approved, a plan to automate the identification of hazardous 
materials by using either the National Stock Number or the part 
number and manufacturer's code. This would include information on 
the type of hazard present and the type of storage and handling 
required for the hazardous material. Following the completion of 
Phase II, the information could be accessed either through electronic 
terminals or by microfiche by all potential Army and depot users. J 

(U) Electrostatic discharges (ESD) continued as a packaging 
problem in FY85, yet steps undertaken in FY84 were continued in FY85 
to bring the problem under control. The scope of the problem and 
answers to it have been identified, but follow-up with necessary 
training and equipment was needed. In FY85, information on ESD 
packaging was sent to the field through major commands. Where units 
advised they could not comply with AMC instructions for a heat seal 
bag or with MIL-STD-2073 provisions, stock numbers of ESD pouches 
usable as alternatives were supplied. AMPSCC published a purchase 
description for an ESD protective packaging work site and an ESD 

53 Ibid. 

54 Ibid. 

55 Ibid. 



231 



field service kit, as well as an ESD Protective Packaging pamphlet, 
the latter to be republished as a numbered pamphlet. Further, LABCOM 
was given the AMC lead for ESD and was evaluating the ESD project 
plan. 56 

(U) In FY85 the Army developed a three-phase plan for 
implementation of MIL-STD-2073. Phase I was scheduled for completion 
by June 1986 and involved restructuring computer files to a standard 
and modifying software for all packaging applications to conform to 
the new files. Phase II, targeted for completion by FY88, related to 
design and construction of files of predetermined packaging code 
tables and the development of software for the automated generation 
of packaging records for items within prescribed weight, size, 
fragility, and composition limits. Phase III was to include the 
design and construction of computer tables for all packaging codes, 
with corresponding in-the-clear interpretations of packaging 
requirements. It would also include the design of software to 
generate in-the-clear packaging instructions on all computerized 
acquisition documents. In October 1985, the Joint Military Packaging 
Training Center started teaching a three-day course covering the 
MIL-STD. 57 

(U) Transport ation . In early FY85 General Thompson directed 
that a one-time transportability review of selected systems be 
undertaken. Transportability concerned the relative ease of movement 
by appropriate means to the field or into a strategic location. Size 
and weight were prime factors affecting transportability, as these 
could rule out transportation by certain vehicles or aircraft. The 
review, covering 70 systems, was completed in March 1985. It 
resulted in a variety of recommendations to institutionalize 
transportability early in the design development and fielding 
process. The recommendations ran the gamut from organizational 
realignments to administrative and regulatory changes to operational 
actions. Some specifics included a reemphasis on current procedures 
for transportability, identifying engineering for transportability 
focal points in all PM offices and MSCs, and instilling a philosophy 
of "lightening up" equipment within requirements documents in making 
design choices, from conception throughout development. ° 

(U) In reporting the results of the study to the CSA, 
General Thompson noted that AMC and the Military Traffic Management 
Command (MTMC) had the authority to implement the study 
recommendations. AMC would continue its close coordination with the 
MTMC "to enhance strategic mobility and add lightness to the force." 



56 
57 
58 



Ibid. 
Ibid. 
Ibid. 



232 



The greatest need of AMC in this area, the CG stated, promising 
continued command emphasis, was to convince its people to "think 
small." 59 

(U) Within CONUS and as the Army focal point for two basic DOD 
transportation policy and procedural regulations, AR 55-355, Military 
Traffic Management Regulation, 60 and DOD 4500. 32. -R, Military Standard 
Transportation and Movement Procedures (MILSTAMP), AMC helped 
coordinate revisions during FY85. The joint traffic management 
regulation revision actually began in March 1984, at the initiation of 
the MTMC which was seeking ways to make the regulation a more 
effective procedural document for CONUS transportation officers. The 
other regulation was reviewed at the March 1985 request of the Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Management 
(DASC L&MM) to determine what changes were necessary to allow DOD 
traffic managers to take advantage of opportunities presented by 
deregulaton of the carrier industry. AMC, representing Army, 
assisted in developing changes that allow negotiation with carriers 
for movement of freight and for routing of full truck and carloads 
without prior coordination with MTMC area commands. 

(U) FY85 saw the continuation of a trend toward increased 
security in transporting sensitive materiel. In July 1984 the 
concept of constant surveillance services (CSS) was adopted as the 
minimum criteria for protection of sensitive conventional arms, 
ammunition, and explosives (AA&E) and for confidential classified 
shipments. Commercial telephone numbers by which points of contact 
could be reached both at the origin of the cargo and at its 
destination were required to be included in the government bills of 
lading so that commercial carriers could obtain needed help. ^ 

(U) In February 1985 the MTMC established an 800 number which 
commercial carriers could call toll free in the event of accidents or 
other incidents involving transportation of sensitive materiel in the 
continental US. The following March saw strengthening of category I 
missile criteria to require use of cleared and armed carriers whose 
drivers were trained in security. Other actions included the 
distribution of an Army Transportation School video tape in April for 
training at Army installations, the September direction to consignees 



59 



60 

61 
62 



Ibid. Ltr, General Thompson to General Wickham, Subj: 

[Transportability], 10 May 1985. For action taken in FY84 on this 

issue, see the Materiel Readiness Chapter of the FY84 AHR. 

This regulation had different designations for the various branches and 

the Defense Logistics Agency. 

Ibid. 

Ibid. 

Ibid. 



233 



having safe havens to receive and secure munition vehicles regardless 
of what hour they might arrive, and the decision, also in September, 
requiring two drivers (Dual Driver Protective Service) for CONUS 
shipments of category II through IV AA&E. ■* 

(U) Area Oriented Depot Modernization . Plans to modernize the 
three Area Oriented Depots (AOD) called for work to commence at the 
Sharpe Army Depot in FY85, New Cumberland Army Depot in FY86, and Red 
River Army Depot in FY87. Congressional interest had moved plans for 
the NCAD ahead of RRAD, but all three depots were planned to be such 
as would support the modern Army through the 1990 's and into the 21st 
Century. Each depot would have three major integrated elements, an 
automated materials handling system, a management and control system, 
and a consolidated facility where all major functions are performed 
under one roof. 

(U) Plans that had been in development extending back into the 
'70's were to answer the projected mission growth associated with the 
greatest force modernization since World War II. Existing facilities 
regularly working two and sometimes three shifts to accomplish their 
peacetime mission would be required to work nearly three full shifts 
by 1990. To be ready for mobilization requirements, the new 
facilities were to be designed to handle peacetime work in a single 
shift, the slack time being available for equipment repair, surges, 
or, if needed, war mobilization. Another consideration going into 
the modernization was the age both of the equipment and of the ADP 
system, the former subject to increasingly frequent breakdown after 
40 years of use and the latter affording only "historical" rather 
than real time information. 

(U) The Sharpe project gained congressional approval and 
requests for proposal were advertised by the COE in Sacramento. The 
bidder response to the proposal indicated Initially that the OPA 
funding would be short by $26.6 million, but more detailed analysis 
found that $19.6 million could be financed from OMA money, and the 
remainder was within AMC's reprogramming authority for OPA, an issue 
being examined by the DCS for Resources Management. " 

(U) NCAD Stock Relocation . As a result of congressional 
interest, the construction of an Eastern Distribution Center (EDC) at 
New Cumberland Army Depot (NCAD) gained approval in FY84 to begin in 



63 

64 
65 
66 



DCS for Supply, Maintenance and Transportation, FY85 AHR submission, 

HQ, AMC. 

Ibid. 

Ibid. Conversation 16 Jan 87, Iriving Levine, AMCSM-PO. 

DCS for Supply, Maintenance and Transportation, FY85 AHR submission, 

HQ, AMC. 



234 



mid FY85. About that time, however, the Corps of Engineers found a 
major fault line running below the site originally selected for the 
EDC. The only possible alternative site was occupied by two large 
warehouses and two sheds, all filled to capacity. As the remaining 
depot facilities were already at 94 percent occupancy, AMC undertook 
relocation of dormant and slow-moving stocks to Letterkenny, Seneca, 
and Lexington-Bluegrass Army Depots, completing the project in March 
1985. In all, some 11,598 short tons were moved, 47,360 line items, 
freeing 320,928 square feet of covered storage. Additional space was 
kept free by diverting 262 incoming shipments to other depots. ' 

(U) Automated Warehousing . The LOGMARS (Logistics Application 
of Automated Marking and Reading Symbols) program used 
machine-readable bar codes in much the same way the supermarket 
industry used the Universal Product Code (UPC). A variety of 
logistics applications for LOGMARS included such processes as 
shipping and inventory. The total AMC LOGMARS program was estimated 
to cost $21 million and was to be fullv implemented at 196 sites by 
the end of the first quarter of FY87. 68 

(U) AMC applications of LOGMARS and the dates by which they 
were or were projected to be implemented were as follows: 

AMC Actual/Projected 

Application Completion Date"" 

Automated Self Service Supply Center Oct 83 

Maintenance Shop Floor System Nov 83 
Installation Equipment Management 

Bar Code Inventory System Feb 84 

Ammunition Shipping Dec 84 
Physical Inventory /Location Survey/ 

Quality Inspection Apr 85 

Ammunition Inventory/Location Survey Apr 85 
Intransit Visibility for ALOC Shipment 

Test (Europe) May 85 

Wholesale Shipping Nov 85 

Wholesale Receiving Nov 85 

Automated Total Control/Inventory System Feb 86 

Total Packaging/Unit Material Fielding Jan 86 

(U) AMC was the Army lead in the LOGMARS Documentation 
Subgroup. On 9 June 1985, the group agreed on a bar coded version 
DOD Form 1387, Military Shipment Label, and on 24 October 1985 they 



67 
68 
69 



Ibid. 
Ibid. 
Ibid. Dates as of Nov 85. 



235 



agreed on two bar coded versions of DD Form 1348-1, a requisition 
form, one for Navy having nine element codes and one with seven 
element codes for everyone else. They were to be used on a limited 
basis in 1986 as part of the Wholesale Shipping application. 

(U) The ammunition shipping application was completed in FY85 
on a priority basis. The program was approved by DA on 22 June 1984 
and was completed on 11 April 1985, with installation of the 
ammunition bar coding equipment at Sierra Army Depot, the last 
station to be equipped. The first equipment delivery had occurred in 
September 1984, and the first site in operation was in December 1984. 
Completion of the program at $1.3 million allowed AMC to provide all 
of its military customers with bar-coded ammunition, conforming to 
MIL-STD 129J, 25 September 1984. 71 

(U) Maintenance Shop Floor Sy stem. Maintenance management 
automation in depot maintenance shops fell under the Maintenance Shop 
Floor System (MSFS), a project approved 12 June 1985 and put out for 
bid at the end of the fiscal year. The system was expected to be 
installed at Corpus Christi, Anniston, Red River, Tooele, Sacramento, 
Tobyhanna, and Letterkenny Army depots. 

(U) Au tomated Storage and Retrieval System . The Automated 
Storage and Retrieval System was planned as an enhancement of MSFS to 
be installed six months later. It was to be a state-of-the-art 
system for processing and controlling parts/materiel used to support 
the rebuilding of combat vehicles and missile system for the Army. 
It would use mini-stackers for storing small items, pallet stackers 
for pallet loads of up to 2,000 pounds, cantilever racks for long 
items such as bar stock and sheet metal, and open storage for items 
too large to fit elsewhere. The peripheral data management equipment 
in the system included line printers, data entry terminals, 
and bar code printers and scanners. z 

(U) Tires . TACOM was tasked to establish a system by which 
tire manufacturers would store and issue standard size tires, 
relieving Army of that function. A model by which customers would 
use the GSA Federal Supply Schedule and not involve TACOM proved 
infeasible and not cost effective when scrutinized, however. 
Subsequently, it was decided that an electronic ordering system used 
in the Defense General Supply Center for the delivery of film and 
light bulbs could be adapted as the TACOM Order Placement System 
(TOPS) for the direct order and delivery of standard tires. To make 



70 Ibid. 

Ibid. For more on the LOGMARS program, especially on ammunition, see 

the FY84 AHR. 
72 Ibid. 



236 



the system work, however, TACOM needed to deviate from the OMB 
Circular A125 requiring positive proof of delivery before fast pay 
procedures could be used to pay the vendor. OMB subsequently issued 
an Attachment 2 to Circular A125 permitting payment on vendor 
certification of shipment under circumstances that appeared to 
satisfy TACOM' s need. 73 

(U) P roperty Disp osal Restraints. First DOD and then HQ DA 
placed constraints on movement of material to property disposal. This 
FY85 development resulted in significant impact to the depots, 
exacerbated by storage requirements for new weapon system stock, but 
was undertaken following disclosure that valuable material had 
slipped through for disposal. By 30 September 1985 DESCOM depots 
held 20,851 line items of wholesale stock graded category 
H — unserviceable/unrepairable — worth $465 million and occupying about 
one million square feet of floor space. In June, the overall storage 
space occupancy rate had already reached 87 percent versus the 85 
percent that yields optimum efficiency. Area Oriented Depots were at 
94 percent occupancy levels. 

(U) C ore Logistic s. The FY85 DOD Authorization Act required 
the Services and the Defense Logistics Agency to report to Congress 
by 1 April 1985 their core logistics functions. Identification of 
these functions would mean that, according to OMB Circular A-76, they 
would not be contracted out. AMC identified a wide range of specific 
functions, equipment, and facilities that it considered to belong 
in-house, submitting its response to DA. The AMC position was the 
basis of DA's response to DOD and was similar to responses of the 
other Services. DOD's reply to Congress limited core logistics 
capability to include only facilities, equipment, and management 
personnel. Although criticized in the House Armed Services 
Subcommittee on 3 April 1985 as being nonresponsive, no further 
congressional direction was given, and present Army documentation on 
the matter reflects the DOD position. ^ 

Honduras (U) 

(U) To enhance logistical support to forces in Honduras, NCAD 
began shipping supplies to the Charleston APDE for airlift 
under the Remote Area Support (RAS) concept which was already in use 
for Okinawa, Turkey, Italy, and the Virgin Islands. The change meant 
a seven day reduction in the time taken to fulfill an order. ° 



73 Ibid. Federal Registe r, Vol 50, No. 71, 12 Apr 85, pp. 14688-14689. 

75 Ibid ' 
n Ibid. 

76 Ibid. 



237 



(U) In one episode of support for forces In Honduras, FORSCOM 
requested immediate help for the 224th Military Intelligence 
Battalion in the form of three airfield tugs and two maintenance 
shelters. Since they could not be supplied through the wholesale 
system, AMC granted local purchase authority and gave funds to DA 
which in turn were transferred to FORSCOM. By the end of the fiscal 
year the tugs were in place while the shelters were split between a 
shipment on the way to Honduras and a remainder in storage in 
Charleston, SC, waiting site approval by the Honduran government. ' 

Republic of Korea (U) 

(U) Increased support to the Eighth Army in Korea (USAEIGHT 
-EUSA) came in FY85 when AMC assumed contract management functions. 

Elect ronic Data Int erchange of Governmen t Bills of Lading Data (U) 

(U) NCAD was the DA participant in a DOD test of 
computer-to-computer interchange of information on government bills 
of lading. 78 

Chemic a l_Ag en t Re s i s t an t Co at i n g (U) 

(U) The HQ DA September 1982 decision to adopt chemically 
resistant coatings on Army equipment coincided with the decision a 
few months later to adopt the German three-colour camouflage pattern. 
Funds were not available for widespread implementation in FY84 or 
'85, however, so CARC and camouflage pattern painting (CPP) on a 
regular basis was planned for new equipment and equipment going to 
depot repair in FY86, although systems which could generate the funds 
earlier were requested to do so. The 1 October 1985 implementation 
date for CARC/CPP did not proceed smoothly. AMC tasked TROSCOM to 
carry forward with existing resources. Major problems encountered 
were caused by the lack of paint facilities meeting federal safety 
standards under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) and 
user hesitancy in applying CARC. Limited funding delayed 
implementation of the program, but AMC facilities in general 
possessed the capability to apply CARC. 9 



77 
78 
79 



Ibid. 

Ibid. 

Ibid. Msg, DAL-SMP, Subj: Army Adoption of CARC, 061547Z May 83. For 

early history of this program, see BY84 AMC AHR. 



238 



Inventory Management Policy Division (U) 

(U) Organization . The Inventory Management Policy Division was 
established 13 May 1985 to "direct the establishment of policies, 
procedures, systems, plans, goals, and objectives governing 
requirements determination, asset reporting, and associated 
documentation and programs." It was divided into two branches, the 
Major Items Policy Branch and the Minor Items Policy Branch, each 
branch being further divided into teams. The major items branch, for 
example, had a team on Prepositioning of Material Configured to Unit 
Sets (POMCUS), while its sister had a war reserve team. 

(U) Equipment Release Priority System . In June, AMC was able 
to replace the Requisition Validation (REQ VAL) system with ERPS, the 
Equipment Release Priority System. The new system promised to 
eliminate checking of multiple sources in assigning major equipment 
items and eliminate a good deal of the confusion item managers might 
otherwise encounter ensuring that units with bona fide equipment 
shortages receive equipment based on the highest directed priority. 

(U) Major Item System Mapping . A data bank being compiled in 
FY85 linked major end items to the system in which they operated. 
Called "Major Item System Mapping," the data base was to be an 
automated element of Army Materiel Plan Modernization that would 
permit a change from managing individual items to managing total 
systems. Problems of integrating major end items into their system 
were expected to be alleviated. Also, because funding was usually by 
system rather than end item, a conformity would be achieved there as 
well. By the end of FY85, a partial data bank had been completed, 
and testing of the system was anticipated in FY86. 

(U) POM/Budget Synchronization of Spares and Repair Parts . This 
HQ DA DCSLOG-directed project was an attempt to compute spares and 
repair parts for six major programs by using the same major item 
assumptions for distribution, operational tempo, and failure for all 
aspects of the program including initial and replenishment, depot 
maintenance and war reserves. The six programs included in this were 
the M1/M1A1 Abrams tank, M2/M3 Bradley, AZ-64 helicopter, UH-60 
helicopter, Patriot, and SINCGARS. The Secondary Items Policy 
Branch, Inventory Management Policy Division, carried out AMC's role 
in the program, which was to supply input for baseline cost estimates 
for the FY88-92 POM. 81 



80 Ibid, 

81 Ibid 



239 



(U) Subje c t Mat ter Asse ssments . Separate Subject Matter 
Assessments of spare/repair parts requirements determinations and of 
war reserves were conducted. In these SMAs the procedures and 
policies followed in the Materiel Management Directorates of the 
commodity MSCs were reviewed with the intent of identifying, and 
eventually spreading throughout the command, the most efficient 
techniques and organizational structure. ^ 

(U) Support List Allowance Card Enhancement . During FY85 gains 
were made in reducing the secondary item inventory carried by field 
units under the Support List Allowance Card (SLAC) process without 
degrading readiness. The SLAC Enhancement initiative was carried out 
through a functional process assessment (FPA) by MRSA, the MSCs, and 
HQ AMC to identify problems in SLAC policy, procedures, and 
automated systems, to recommend corrective action, and to establish 
milestones for implementing corrective actions aimed at eliminating 
excess generation of support items. Changes were made as a result of 
the initiative and the FPA throughout AMC and were to be included in 
a new Army regulation, Materiel Release, Fielding and Transfer. 00 

(U) War Reserves Automated Process . In May 1984, the War 
Reserve Automated Process was implemented as a standard baseline 
procedure for the entire war reserve community. Interface with all 
field activities was standardized and implemented early in 1985. The 
first WRAP cycle was completed in April 1985 and the second cycle, 
which identified the FY88 war reserve requirements, was completed in 
October 1985. 84 

Materiel Distribution Management Division (U) 

(U) Central Demand Data Base . Individual repair part demands 
were to be collected into a centralized Army data base, complete with 
a three position end item code (EIC) placed on each demand document 
at the retail level, to enable accurate identification of repair parts 
consumption by specific type of end item. Milestone II approval for 
the program was given 20 September 1985 by the Assistant Secretary of 
the Army (Financial Management), with implementation expected by 
November 1986. 

(U) Ex cess Materiel/Returns/Disposal Programs . A number of 
important changes were made in programs dealing with the disposition 
of excess materiel, it having been disclosed that within DOD valuable 
and needed equipment had been disposed of as surplus. Implementation 



82 
83 
84 
85 



Ibid. 
Ibid. 
Ibid. 
Ibid. 



240 



of the Army's Retention and Transfer Enhancement (RATE) plan and of 
AMC's Materiel Excess, Redistribution and Disposal Improvement 
Program (MERDIP) aided in the maximum utilization and reutilization 
of materiel. Changes were made in the numerical retention stockage 
level so that assets would be retained above the contingency 
retention level if management decided that the items would have 
potential use. This insured the retention of repair parts that 
supported end items which were projected to remain in the Army system 
for the next five years or which had been procured within the last 
three. 

(U) Two changes in the Commodity Command Standard System (CCSS) 
also helped eliminate the possibility that useful materiel would be 
disposed of. One change provided for the return to the wholesale 
level of items that were repairable at the direct support and general 
support levels. This insured that items which could not be repaired 
at the retail level would be returned to the wholesale level for 
repair and return to stock. The second change to the CCSS prevented 
the automatic generation of disposal release orders, requiring 
specific approval of the item manager and the appropriate supervisor 
for such orders. 

(U) Another change which helped insure control over all surplus 
materiel was the elimination of dollar value criteria for reporting 
excess materiel, henceforth ensuring that the item manager would be 
informed of all excess materiel regardless of dollar value. 

(U) Two major programs were implemented that dealt directly 
with the return and reutilization of Army-owned assets. The first 
dealt with Army-owned assets managed by either DLA or GSA. It 
resulted in the reutilization of materiel that would otherwise have 
been disposed of by those two agencies. The second program expedited 
flow of excess materiel from the Army in Europe to CONUS, thus 
increasing the availability of assets. 

(U) Special Activities Support . AMC supply support was 
furnished the 1985 Boy Scout Jamboree held at Fort A. P. Hill 
24-30 July 1985. The 1985 US Military Academy Summer Training 
program was also supported by the equipment that was loaned to the 
Academy for the training program and then returned to the depot. AMC 
furnished equipment on loan to law enforcement agencies in 
California, the Third Marine Corps Air Station, and the FBI in 



87 Ibid> 
11 Ibid. 

at Ibid « 
89 Ibid. 



241 



support of the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. The Defense 
LogisticsAgency and two AMC MSCs, AMCCOM and CECOM also provided 
support . 

(U) Direct Suppo rt Sy stem/Air Lines of Communications . The 
Direct Support System (DSS) was a program in which bulk shipments of 
spare parts were consolidated and shipped directly to the 
requisitioning units. In FY85, 13 units were removed from DSS while 
19 were added, 12 in CONUS, five in Europe, and two in Korea. In 
addition, several units were added to the DSS as a remote support 
area. This included Army Reserve and Army National Guard in Guam, and 
units i.i the Virgin Islands and Johnston Island. At the end of the 
fiscal year, AMC was planning to add another 25 CONUS and National 
Guard units to tne DSS and to add Honduras to the remote support 
areas serviced by DSS, both for exercise supply requirements and a 
test of support for an expeditionary force. 

(U) As noted above, FY85 saw the beginning of land-clearing 
efforts at the New Cumberland Army Depot for the Eastern Distribution 
Center. Also at NCAD, the Consolidation and Containerization Point 
(CCP) was converted to government operations. Prelodge, a system of 
scheduling deliveries to the CCP, reduced demurrage costs and allowed 
better manpower use at New Cumberland. 

(U) AMC made a case with GSA in October 1984 for elimination of 
the 8 percent surcharge that GSA assessed on equipment shipped to 
Army overseas customers. The following March, GSA cut its surcharge 
to 6 percent (at a savings to Army of approximately $1.5 million per 
percentage point) and set October 1985 as the date for any further 
reduction . 

(U) GSA increased the number of its lines of equipment at 
Sharpe Army Depot by 20, to a total of 350 lines in support of Array 
customers in the Pacific. Due to modernization constraints, the GSA 
lines at NCAD remained steady at 117. Generally during FY85, GSA 
supply performance was slow, reaching the highest order ship tine 
(OST) iu three years, primarily due to depot closures and excessive 
intrausit times to NCAD CCP. 



90 


Ibid. 


91 


ibid. 


92 


ibid. 


9'i 


Ibid. 


94 


Ibid. 



242 



(U) The use of Air Lines of Communication spread in FY85. In 
February, the Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity (AMSAA) 
published a study that supported ALOC and recommended its expansion 
as effective in reducing order ship time (OST) and comparing 
favorably in actual costs versus surface transportation. In FY85 seven 
units were added to the ALOC program — one in Europe and three each in 
Puerto Rico and Panama — while two units were removed from ALOC. The 
NCAD suggested the REFORGER 85 ALOC in which tactical delivery was 
made of specially configured and identified ALOC pallets to a forward 
airfield in Germany. This exercise, held in January 1985, was 
followed by an April conference with the Military Airlift Command 
(MAC) on ALOC. The table on the following page summarizes the gain 
in OST by ALOC to various destinations. 95 

(U) Rapid Army Priority Item Distribution System II . A much 
shorter OST was needed for those repair parts needed to bring 
deadlined combat systems back into operational status. RAPIDS II, 
which aimed for a nine-day OST for such parts, had been tested in 
Europe in CY84, gaining approval in a modified form after achieving 
average OST times on the order of 12.1 days in the latter half of the 
year. It was being considered for adoption as a worldwide system. 
In FY85, it achieved a low of 9.8 days OST in April, and maintained 
OSTs in the 10-12 day range throughout the year. In June MAC 
replaced the expensive commercial air carrier used during the testing 
phase and experienced no degradation of support. By the end of the 
year, RAPIDS II materiel was being flown on a daily basis from 
McGuire Air Force Base, New Jersey, to Rhein Main Air Base in 
Germany. ™ 

(U) Cataloging Subject Matter Assessment . AMC's Management 
Engineering Activity conducted a Subject Matter Assessment (SMA) of 
the MSC cataloging function, establishing a standard mission, 
functions, and organizational structure for cataloging. Based on the 
standardization, model job descriptions were developed for 
non-supervisory and non-administrative positions. Implementation of 
the standard cataloging organization and its 21 enhancements was 
approved on 2 April, the changes to go into effect in December 1985. ' 

(U) AMC Army Master Data File Product Enhancement . Underway in 
FY84 was a comprehensive plan by which AMC, working with the USA 
Logistics Center and the USA Logistics Evaluation Agency, would 
improve the accuracy and utility of the Army Master Data File (AMDF). 



95 
96 
97 



DCS for Supply, Maintenance and Transportation, FY85 AHR Submission. 
Ibid. FY84 AHR, HQ, AMC. 

DCS for Supply, Maintenance and Transportation, FY85 AHR submission, 
HQ, AMC. 



243 



u 

o 

c 

ct) 
co 

CO 

Q 

>-i 
0) 

0) en 
E >» 

•H CO 

a c 

•H -H 
CO 

CD 
X) 

o 
a) 

00 

cfl 
M 

0) 

m 
oo 



>N 
u 

c 
<d 

< 

CO 

u 
•H 

4-1 
CO 
•H 
M 
O 

cu 

CO 

c 

0) 

•-M 

cu 
Q 



O 


v£> CN 


o 


• • 


►J 


00 CO 


< 


co <r 



I I 
I I 
I I 



I I I 





CN CN 0\ 0\ 


1 LO P- VO 


co 


• • « • 


1 . . . 


m 


oo i— i co oo 


1 CN 00 O 


P 


r^ r^ r-~ m 


1 vO CM CO 



o 



t^. vO N CTi O ^ I I 



cn t^ h. st csi «j 

CN CN CN CN CN CN 



I I 





o o r» cn 


l h m cm 


co 


• • • • 


1 • ♦ • 


in 


m <r <-\ cn 


I r^ co -cr 


Q 


m m o <r 


1 <f N CM 





o 


r~- 


oo 


CO 


m 


H 


O 


1 


1 




o 














1 


1 




hJ 


co 


m 


<r 


cn 


o 


<r 


1 


1 




<: 


CM 


CN 


CN 


CN 


CM 


CM 


1 


1 


>. 




















£ 




















S-i 




















<: 
























co 


m 


vO 


m 


1 


^O 


m 


r~- 




CO 


• 


• 


• 


• 


1 


• 


• 


• 




CO 


r-~ 


o 


m 


CNI 


1 


CN 


H 


H 




O 


m 


m 


m 


■<r 


1 


CO 


CM 


CN 




w u u 



244 



Called AMC AMDF Product Enhancement (AMCAPE), steps taken in FY85 
included completion of the confidence level sample and corresponding 
corrective actions, completion of weight and cuhe data for war 
reserve items, determination of AMCAPE posting accuracy, 
establishment of data element responsibility, development of an AMC 
regulation for conducting the total item review, completion of data 
element utility determination, the start of front end edits, the 
start of a study to distribute data by weapons system, and reduction 
of AMDF surve: 



itudy to distribute data by weapons system, and 
'eillance errors. 



(U) Seria l Numbe r Tracking . A standardized serial number 
tracking (SNT) program was created in response to piecemeal demands 
from higher authorities that various weapon systems had SNT programs 
to track certain high cost components. There were two SNT programs 
in effect. One was the DOD Small Arms Serialization Program (DODSASP) 
which was being applied in FY85 to track controlled cryptographic 
items. The other SNT program was the Army Intensive Managed 
Item-Expanded (AIMI-X). 100 

(U) Ph ysic a l Inventory Program Enhan cemen t. The objectives of 
the AMC Physical Inventory Program Enhancement (PIPE) plan were to 
improve inventory record accuracy and physical inventory controls at 
inventory control points (ICP) and depots. Implementation of the 
plan continued in FY85. On 14 January, AMC Regulation 740-17, 
Storage and Supply Activities: Inventory Accountability was issued. 
Prototype testing of the general supply and ammunition inventory 
application of LOGMARS was completed at the depots in New Cumberland 
and Tooele. TSM Corporation undertook a contract study of inventory 
training. Projected for FY86 was the spread of LOGMARS to all 
storage sites, the completion and implementation of the SMA on 
inventory functions at MSCs, and approval of a system concept for the 
redesign CCSS inventory process. During the year, DA, Deputy Chief of 
Staff for Logistics, was briefed on progress of AMC's overall 
inventory posture. 

(U) Also in FY85, a functional process assessment was 
undertaken for the CG to lay down the processes involved in AMC's 
physical inventory program and study it for areas of improvement. The 
laydown covered policy, procedures, and automated systems, and was 
presented to the Commander on 11 September 1985. Areas found for 



98 Ibid. 

99 AMC AHR, FY84. 

iUU DCS for Supply, Maintenance and Transportation, FY85 AHR submission, 

ioi"- 

Ibid . 



245 



improvement included clarification of policies and procedures for 
contractor accountability, updating procedures to account for items 
on loan, requiring a physical count when an audit or investigative 
agency identifies a shortage (although looking for ways to reduce the 
number of physical inventories), and developing a technique to 
validate reports. ^ - 

Weapon_jSystems_ (U) 

Command, Control, and Surveillance Systems Division (U) 

(U) The Command, Control, and Surveillance Systems Division, 
(AMCSM-WC) , came into being on 15 May 1985 to manage the OPA 
appropriations for communications, electronics, surveillance, target 
acquisition, survey, and physical security equipment. In all, it was 
given 192 budget lines, the FY85 OPA budget which was 
approximately $2.5 billion. Concerned with the life cycle materiel 
management functions associcated with acquisition, support, and 
disposal of command, control and surveillance weapon systems and 
equipment, it operated through two branches, one for command and 
control systems and the other for surveillance equipment. 0J 

(U) Command and Control Branch . Budget reviews, ILS meetings, 
command reviews, and the like occupied the Command and Control Branch 
during FY85. Specific systems requiring special attention during the 
year included: TACFIRE, Battery Computer Systems, Mobile Subscriber 
Equipment, Remotely Piloted Vehicle, SINCGARS, and Regency Net. 
Others were a range of non-developmental items, batteries, the Global 
Positioning System (GPS), Single Channel Objective Tactical Terminal 
(SCOTT), and Short Range Air Defense Command and Control (SHORAD C 2 ). 
In addition, the branch was involved in the transition of other 
systems from developing commands and PMs . 

(U) Also, a great deal of attention went toward a Battlefield 

Communications Review and a revamping of the Army Signal Battalion's 

communication architecture. Eventually, the changes begun were 

expected to completely revise the Army's tactical communications. As 

a further task, the branch was given responsibility for ILS support 

105 
for the Army Space Program. 

(U) Surveillance Equ ipment Branch. Systems given special 
attention dVrTng" ~F~Y8 5 "that"fell within the ambit of the Surveillance 
Equipment Branch and Its predecessors Included: Firefinder Radars 

102 Ibld. 
l03 Ibld. 
l04 Ibid. 
105 Ibid. 



246 



AN/TPQ-36 and 37, Teampack AN/MSQ103-A, Ground Vehicular Laser 
Locator Designator (GLLD), Trallblazer AN/TSQ-114A, Radiac Meter 
IM-185/OD, Electronic Test and Repair Station AN/MSM-105, Joint 
Surveillance Target Attack Radar (JSTARS), and All Source Analysis 
System (ASAS). Similar work went Into guiding the life-cycle support 
for various communications security (COMSEC) equipment, night vision 
devices, and Installation kits for radios. The emphasis on 
life-cycle management was enlarged during the year with assumption of 
management responsibility for depot overhaul of assigned equipment. 0& 

A via tion a nd M issile Systems Division (U) 

(U) Worldwide Aviat_ion Logistics Conference. A worldwide 

aviation logistics conference was held at AVSCOM from I t ;> 5 April 

1985 with representatives from all the MACOMs as well as from the 

Array staff. The conference reviewed/established production 

deliveries, depot maintenance, modification programs, and 

distribution schedules for all types of aviation equipment. It was 

*lso agreed for the first time that the UH-1 would be considered for 

1 07 
war reserve storage in Europe. 

Vehicle and Troop Support Division (U) 

(U) This division was formed in May 1985 when the Command, 
Control, Surveillance and Support Systems Division was split in two. 
The Vehicle and Troop Support Division was Itself divided into a 
Vehicle Systems Branch and Troop Support Branch, with the assigned 
systems and resources being realigned in June 1985. The division 
served, for assigned weapons systems, as the weapon system support 
office through the weapons production phase and as the weapon system 
staff manager from transition into operation through final disposal. 08 

(U) In FY85 the division was also tasked to manage Product 
Improvement Programs and the Depot Maintenance Program for assigned 
weapons systems, as well as the Logistics Unit Productivity Study 
program (LUPS). The division was responsible for managing the OPA 
appropriations for activities 1 and 3 (vehicular equipment and other 
support equipment, respectively). This consisted of approximately 
140 budget lines and the FY85 appropriations for them of $1.3 
billion. 109 



106 Ibid. 
l07 Ibid. 
108 lbid. 
l09 Ibid. 



247 



(U) The items assigned to the Troop Support Branch consisted of 
TROSCOM-managed OPA 3 equipment, such as fuel and lubricants (POL), 
POL distribution equipment, water distribution and purification 
equipment, mobile power sources, Array watercraft, shelters and 
containers, air conditioning and heating systems, 

surveying equipment, railroad equipment, bridging equipment, training 
devices not unique to particular weapon systems, combat field feeding 
systems, bakeries, shower and bath units, and cargo airdrop 
equipment. The items assigned to the Vehicle Systems Branch 
consisted of TACOM-managed OPA 1 and 3 equipment and AMCC 0M- managed 
OPA 3 funded equipment. This included tactical and nontactical 
vehicles, commercial construction equipment, materiels handling 
equipment, chemical equipment, countermine equipment, and shop 
equipment . 

(U) Rig i d Wa 11 J5he 1 1 e r Plan. A plan for the management of 
rigid wall shelters was prepared by the division and approved by the 
CG, AMC and by HQDA. Highlights of the plan included provision that 
shelters be authorized as components of higher assemblies, that they 
be fielded as a separate line in OPA 3 budgets, that they were to be 
centrally managed through interchange by TROSCOM and that the 
management of the S250 and S280 shelters was to be shifted from CECOM 
to TROSCOM. U1 

(U) Commercial Generators. At the direction of the VCSA, AMC 
undertook testing of quiet commercial generators for corps and 
division tactical command posts. In FY85 tests at Fort Hood, quiet 
commercial generators demonstrated that they could perform as 
required at the command posts. The VCSA then approved a plan to 
acquire such generators on a competitive basis. 1 ^ 

(U) Tugbo at Study . In FY85 the "Army Tugboat Requirements, 
Logistic Civilian Augmented Program (LOGCAP) a ad Organic Study" was 
completed and briefed to the VCSA, who approved purchase of two large 
tugs in FY87 and an additional 11 large and 10 small tugs during the 
FY88-92 program years. 113 

(U) Wat ercraft P rogram . The Army's OPA 3 watercraft program 
for FY85 bud"geted $58 million to procure one logistics support vessel 
(LSV), two floating causeways, two utility landing craft (LCU), and 
two roll on/roll off platforms. Only the LSV, however, was 
contracted for during the year, and that contract (which also 

llOlbid" 

1U Ibid. 
112 Ibid. 
U3 Ibid. 



248 



involved some FY8A funding) was later cancelled for the convenience 
of the Government and was to be resolicited on a competitive basis in 
FY86. 11 * 

(U) Aut omati c AUTO DIN Interface. In May 1982 the then 
Directorate for Supply, Maintenance and Transportation developed a 
concept for a direct communications link between AUTODIN switching 
centers and the CCSS which the MSCs used, thus avoiding routing of 
logistics communication traffic through the local telecommunications 
center. In August 1982 the Directorate for Management Information 
Systems was directed to develop such a system; two and a half years 
later in January 1985 it was installed at AVSCOM for trial. 
Following certification by the Defense Communication Agency in April, 
the system proved out in trials that lasted until August 1985. It 
was next installed at TACOM in August, becoming operational the 
following October, subsequently to be followed at the other commodity 
commands. When fully operational it would cut inventory control 
point processing time by 12 hours and open the way for real time 
processing of requisitions. 



Materiel Distribution Policy Branch 

(U) Materie l Return/Excess Mater iel Program . A number of 
improvements were made in 1985 in managing excess or returned 
equipment. The Army's Materiel Excess, Redistribution and Disposal 
Improvement Program (MERDIP) were both implemented to improve the use 
of resources and to obtain maximum use of equipment inventories 
onhand . 

Execu tive Director for Conventional Ammun ition (U) 

(U) AMC's Office of the Executive Director for Conventional 
Ammunition was the single manager for the Department of Defense, 
charged with obtaining for the conventional ammunition program 
"maximum procurement efficiency and effectiveness, maximum 
integration of the various Service's logistics functions consistent 
with efficiency and effectiveness, and the maintenance of production 
and logistics bases capable of meeting peacetime, surge, and 
mobilization requirements." This responsibility had been delegated to 
the Army by DOD Directive 5160.65, and the Secretary of the Army had 
redelegated the authority to perform this mission to the Commanding 
General of AMC, who in turn had designated the AMC Deputy Commanding 
General for Materiel Readiness as the Executive Director for 



114 Ibid. 
U5 Ibid. 



249 



Conventional Ammunition (EDCA) . He in turn was supported by a Deputy 
Executive Director and an office devoted to the Single Manager for 
Conventional Ammunition mission. 16 

Procurement (U) 

(U) Overall, FY85 was a good year for procurement by the SMCA 
with a number of significant improvements over past years. An 
obligation rate of 85 percent was achieved. In part this was due to 
"short-of-award" actions but another major cause was that over 80 
percent of the total DOD ammunition procurement budget was 
transferred from the Services to the SMCA by the end of the first 
quarter. This was achieved by closer coordination and management 
attention on the part of the Services and DOD, and was also helped by 
the fact that the Appropriation Bill for FY85 was passed unusually 
early in the fiscal year (12 Oct 1984 compared to December dates for 
the preceding three fiscal years). 

(U) Procurement policy in FY85 placed emphasis on including in 
contracts the capability for surge production during an emergency. 
Every FY85 "new private sector solicitation included a single surge 
option clause covering increased quantities and accelerated 
deliveries." Other procurement initiatives that SMCA pursued 
included ways to give customers incentives for efficient procurement 
and production, methods to separately finance and account for the 
costs of maintaining a mobilization base, and ways to reduce the 
proliferation of munition types within each ammunition family. 

(U) One area in which procurement performance declined in FY85 
was in the awarding of multiyear contracts, with no such contracts 
being awarded during the fiscal year. 

(U) The major reason for this lack of performance was the 
reluctance of contractors to accept the risks of long term price 
commitments. The result has been generally no price breaks 
associated with multi-year procurement quotes compared to single year 
quotes . 



* " Unless otherwise cited, the source for the section on the SMCA is the 
Executive Director for Conventional Ammunition, Annual Report: 
Progress and Status of the Single Manager for Conventional Ammunition, 
Nov 85. 

The dates Congress passed Appropriation Bills was taken from Office of 
the Director for Conventional Ammunition, Report on the Study of 
Ammunition Procurement Program Instability, 31 May 1985, p. 23. 



250 



ICAPP (U) 

(U) Integration of the various Service's ammunition procurement 
needs was accomplished in the Integrated Conventional Ammunition 
Procurement Plan (ICAPP). This multivolume document was prepared by 
a ten-person office assigned to AMCCOM's Productional Directorate. 
Originally used as a POM review document, the date of publications 
was changed in FY84 to 1 October to allow it to be used instead as an 
analytic tool during the budget review cycle. Thus the ICAPP being 
developed in FY85 was published on 1 October 1985. It contained 
detailed analysis and recommendations on the Services' eight-year 
ammunition procurement plans for the period from FY84 to FY91. ° 

(U) A detailed review of the ammunition procurement programs 
submitted by the four Services resulted in 60 recommendations for 
changes, 43 of which had been accepted by the Services concerned and 
seven of which were still being reviewed when the ICAPP was 
published. 

(U) The recommendations concerned program consolidations, 
sometimes combining the purchases of two Services so that they could 
be ordered in economic quantities, substitutions of one item for 
another, and improvements in financial or acquisition management. The 
Annual Report of the Executive Director for Conventional Ammunition 
stated that the 70 acceptance rate by the Services of the ICAPP 
recommendations was a substantial improvement over the acceptance 
rates of previous years. 

(U) In addition to these recommendations, which were based upon 
specific line item requests, the ICAPP also made some general 
comments and recommendations concerning general categories of 
ammunition, the most significant of which are discussed below. In 
the category of small arms through 20mm the ICAPP noted concern over 
the large amount of undelivered ammunition. One specific problem 
area further singled out for discussion was the failure of 
out-of-CONUS sources to supply the required ammunition, and the ICAPP 
stated that "the continued use of OCONUS sources, which seem 
non-responsive to customer needs, does not fulfill the objective in 
the DOD Directive 5160.65 (paragraph D.2.a.), 'achieve the highest 
possible degree of efficiency and effectiveness ....'" Although 



118 



Executive Director for Conventional Ammunition, Annual: Progress and 
Status of the Single Manager for Conventional Ammunition, Nov 85. 
Unless otherwise stated, the following discussion of the ICAPP is 
taken from the Integrated Conventional Ammunition Procurement Plan, 
FY84-91, Budget Year-87 , 1 Oct 85, Part I: Executive Summary and Part 
II EDCA Analysis of ICAPP. 



251 







c 






















o 






















■r-i 




















s- 


4-5 




















<D 


CO 




















JC 


S_ 




















4-5 


(U 
















* 




J- 


73 












•o 




t — j 




3 


•H 












c 




o~> 1 




Lu 


W 


CO 


=T 


o 


cr t» 


CO 




1 1 






C 
















^T 1 






o 












w 




CO 






c_> 














o 

•H 

> 




>- 




T> 














S- 




•» 1 




<U 














a> 




C 1 




4-> 














(0 




CO 1 




C 


















r-t 1 




cu 














CO 




CU 1 




E 














l_ 








cu 














o 




4-> 1 




I— 1 














E 




C 1 


1 w 


D. 




VO 


^O 


m 


ro 


o 






CU 1 


1 c 


E 












CM 


L. 




E 


1 o 


»-H 














o 




CO 1 


1 -l-t 




















i- 1 


1 4-5 
















o 




3 1 


1 03 
















s 




CJ 1 


l -o 
















40 




O 1 


1 C 


•o 


















$_ 1 


1 CO 


d) 














S-. 




cu 


1 E 


4J 














o 






1 E 


a 














C-. 




c 


1 O 


a> 


















O 1 


1 V 


CJ 




1 — 


c— 


o 


=T 


CM 


T3 




•H 1 


1 cu 


o 




1 — 


* — 


i — 




•=T 


CU 




40 1 


1 as 


«c 














4J 

CO 


• 


•H 1 

C 1 


1 cu 
















cu 


co 


3 1 


1 o~ 
















o. 


o 


E 1 


i <: 
















cu 


c 


E 1 


1 u 
















L. 


o 


«< 


1 HH 




■a 

CO 












co 


c 


t-\ • 1 


1 1 — 




•a 












L 


CO 


CO C\J 1 


l a\ 


iH 


c 












CO 


s: 


C 1 


l >-« 


(0 


a> 












5 


+J 


O CO 1 


l u. 


4-> 


E 
















•r-l tlO 1 


I I 


o 


E 


in 


t- 


on 


in 


O 


co 


CO 


4-5 CO 1 


I =t 


8- 


O 


* — 


C\J 


< — 




VO 


c 


l_ 


c a. I 


1 co 




o 












o 


o 


CO 1 


1 >H 




a> 












•H 


E 


> ■ 1 


1 u* 


o 


ce 






CO 

C 




O 

o 

CO 




4-5 
CO 

•o 

c 
cu 

E 
E 

o 
o 
cu 

I. 

cu 

E 

o 

CO 


•a 
cu 

4J 

c 

3 
O 

o 

<u 
cu 

cu 
o 

Cw 


e: Integrated Con 
t Year-87, Part II 




•H 








It, 


c 


iH 


• • 


cu 


CJ CO 1 




> 




>> 


>, 




•H 


CO 


CO 


i~ 


L- bO 1 




s_ 




E 


> 


L 


u 


4-> 


4J 


cu 


3 id 1 




CO 




l~ 


CD 


■H 


ro 


O 


o 


x: 


O 3 1 




00 




oj 


is 


< 


3E 


H 


z 


4-5 


V) CO 1 



252 



not stated in the actual recommendation, a review of the individual 
line items indicates that Israel was the primary offender in this 
area. The ICAPP recommended that the Single Manager for Conventional 
Ammunition "perform an in-depth review of undelivered requirements to 
determine causes and develop solutions" to the overall problem of 
undelivered ammunition. It also recommended that the Single Manager 
"energetically attempt to use production sources which can satisfy 
customer requirements based upon previous on-time deliveries." 

(U) In the 25mm to 64mm ammunition section no major problems 
were discussed, but the ICAPP did note that the Army was transferring 
the responsibility for 25mm munitions from PM Bradley to AMCCOM, 
although responsibility for the gun was to remain with PM Bradley. It 
also noted that "requirements for Sgt York ammunition are subject to 
change because of the termination of the weapon system." 

(U) The section on mortar ammunition pointed out a troublesome 
situation but did not indicate an overall solution to it. 

(U) For the past several years turbulence in the Army's weapon 
system planning has caused substantial changes in ammunition 
requirements. These changes have impacted on the ability to satisfy 
the Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force requirements. The Army's 
indecision on both the 60mm LWCMS (Light Weight Company Mortar 
System) and the replacement of the 4.2 inch mortar system with the 
120mm mortar system and the turbulence in the Improved 81mm Mortar 
System are all responsible for uncertain customer plans. Since not 
all the DOD Services are planning for comparable new systems, the 
production base changeover to meet the Army's [sic] needs is causing 
problems in providing support for older systems. In some cases, such 
as the older 60mm system, the Army's previous agreements to supply 
from inventory with payback cannot be met because of increased 
requirements. In most instances, the Army has a less than adequate 
stockpile of older stocks to support either recurring DOD or 
potential FMS needs. 

(U) In its discussion of main gun tank ammunition the ICAPP 
concluded that there was a need for aggressive action to reduce the 
unit costs of both the 120mm main gun ammunition and the T900. In 
its line item analysis the ICAPP had recommended that PM Tank 
Main Armament Systems (TMAS): 

— Provide cost analysis data for all items, (by component or 
assembly) that drive unit costs for both 120mm tank main gun 
ammunition and the T900, 

— Identify initiatives being taken to reduce these costs, and 



253 



— Identify the cost benefit of a "systems contract" approach 
instead of a component breakout approach for these munitions. 

These recommendations were accepted, with AMC being tasked to 
initiate the study. 

(U) In its review of demolition material the ICAPP suggested 
that the creation of a second production source for some of the items 
could improve contractor response and lower unit costs. Specific 
line item recommendations were made that a number of items in this 
category be considered as candidates for "Government-Owned 
Government-Operated (GOGO) job shop production." 

(U) In its review of miscellaneous ammunitions (non-toxic 
chemicals, smokepots, bulk explosives and propellants, fuzes and 
primers) the ICAPP stated that the general position of the Single 
Manager for Conventional Ammunition on fuzes was threefold: 

1. discourage fuze proliferation (resist impulse to create a new 
fuze for every new round or application) 

2. promote multi-purpose/multi-option fuzes, and 

3. promote commonality of fuzes across the Services 

(U) The financial data in the ICAPP was also of interest. The 
funding required by the DOD ammunition procurement program for FY85 
is shown below. Funding required by DOD ammunition procurement 
program for FY85 is shown in the table on the following page. 

(U) This financial information was in fact available for all 
eight fiscal years covered by the ICAPP, but as the ICAPP pointedly 
noted in an interesting chart, the figures for the outyears were 
always inflated over what was actually available for use. 
Consistently, the further the projected year was from the actual date 
of the ICAPP, the more money it was projected to have, with each 
following ICAPP reducing the projected budget as the year came 
closer. Thus the FY85 DOD ammunition program was projected in the 
June 1982 ICAPP to be almost 6 billion dollars, but each later ICAPP 
reduced that figure until the Octoberl985 ICAPP showed it to be under 
four billion dollars. Similar trends existed for FY86 though 
FY88. 119 



For a further analysis of this "bow wave" effect, see below. 



254 



Ammunition Procurement Program Instability (U) 

(U) On 19 July 1984 the Joint Conventional Ammunition Program 
Coordinating Group (JCAP/CG) decided that a study should be conducted 
on instability in the ammunition procurement program. This was in 
response to a general perception by ammunition managers that a cause 
of inefficiencies in the program was "instability in the planning, 
programming, budgeting, and execution system (PPBES) for ammunition 
procurements. Frequent program changes during the procurement 
process may be contributing to inefficiencies, which in turn lead to 
reductions in ammunition dollars and quantities." The task of 
preparing the study was given to the JCAP Executive 

Committee, which in turn invited the Office of the Executive Director for 
Conventional Ammunition to direct the study under the supervision of 
the JCAP Executive Committee. 120 

(U) The study concluded that there was a significant amount of 
instability in the program and that it reduced the funds available 
for the purchase of ammunition, in good part because unstable 
programs were likely to be less successful than stable programs in 
the competition for funds. Some of the instability resulted from 
changes in operational requirements but much of the problem was 
internal to the ammunition procurement system. Significantly, the 
study argued that turbulence due to changes made at Service 
headquarters and by Congress should be considered as internal 
turbulence, "things we do to ourselves," because they were usually 
made in response to weaknesses or errors in the ammunition 
procurement system. 

(U) The study singled out three causes of turbulence for 
special mention — the bow wave effect, pricing, and requirements 
instability. The bow wave effect, pushing purchases into the 
outyears in the POM cycle, was a significant cause of instability. 
To some extent this was inherent in the programming cycle, but the 
bow wave in the DOD ammunition procurement program was double that of 
the overall DOD budget. Moreover, the ammunition bow wave was 
significantly greater for the Army than the other Services, and the 
Army's bow wave was the principal influence on the DOD ammunition 
procurement bow wave. 

(U) Inaccurate pricing estimates, usually overestimates, was 
another significant cause of instability. These overestimates were 
greater the further the projected purchase was from the present, but 



120 

Unless otherwise cited, information on this study comes from the 

Office of the Executive Director for Conventional Ammunition, Report 

on the Study of Ammunition Procurement Program Instability, 31 May 

1985. 



255 





rH 






































ro 








oo 






















t- 1 








1 4-3 


CO 


On 


Ov 


vO 




in 


* — 




vO 






ON 






in l 








o 


vO 


VO 


vO 


• 




on 


co 


vO 


o 


o-> 


CM 


in 






• i 








H 


vO 


«— 


f- 


on 




vO 


o 


o 


CT) 


=r 


in 


T— 






CO 1 










• 


• 


• 


on 




• 


• 


* — 


• 


vO 


m 


• 






=r I 








Q 


CO 


i — 


^r 


CM 




oo 


in 


• 


1 — 


• 


• 


cr\ 






on I 




•» 




O 


=r 


cr. 


* — 


«* 




o 


in 


=T 


^r 


vO 


o 


=t 






•t 


m 


vO ( 




Q 


C\J 


■=r 


t — 


* — 




=T 


CM 


m 


CM 


VO 


in 


i — 






on i 


t — 


1 1 


1 >. 


































ON CO 


1 t- 


































1 




1 o 


o; 
































=3" 


• 


1 DO 


o 
































OO 


m I 


1 CD 


i_ 




t— 










in 
















o 




1 


1 4-> 


o 


on 


:-- 


o 


o 




O 


i — 




vO 


CO 










o 


>-• 


c— 


1 CO 


Lu 


* — 


=r 


o 


o 




o 


3- 


CO 


t^ 


CT> 


o 








CM 


It, 




1 C_) 




r- 


• 


o 


o 




o 


• 


1 — 


o> 


in 


vO 


C— 






• 




■1 




l~ 


• 


vO 


• 


• 




• 


vO 


on 


• 


• 


CO 


on 






on i 


■i 


t~- 1 


1 C 


•H 


t— 


vO 


o 


o 




o 


T— 


• 


CM 


CM 


• 


CM 






3- i 


C 


1 


I o 


<< 


«— 


CM 


o 


o 




o 


*— 


=* 


i— 


CM 


i— 


• 






3- 


CO 


vO 


1 -H 


































rH 




1 4-> 


































Ou 


■1 1 


1 -H 




































3" 


1 C 


































4-> 


1 1 


1 3 
















vO 
















C-- 


c 


in 


i e 




t— 


vO 


o 


[-- 




o 


VO 




vO 


O 


in 


in 






on 


CU 




1 E 




CO 


* — 


o 


=r 




o 


vO 




O 


ON 


* — 


CM 






en i 


E 


•» 


i < 


>. 


o 


* — 


o 


vO 




o 


• 


in 


O 


ON 


CO 


on 






• | 


0) 


o 




> 














CO 


CO 


• 


• 


• 


• 






vO 1 


u 


t — 


i >» 


CO 


* — 


in 


o 


in 




o 


on 


vO 


CM 


zj" 


CM 


in 






CO 1 


3 


1 1 


1 JO 


2 


CO 


CM 


o 


vO 




o 


*"" 


• 


m 


T ~ 


T— 








on I 


o 

O 


iT 


1 r~+ 


































I* 


•k 


1 CO 


CO 
































cu 


vO 1 


f c 


o. 


































1 


1 o 


1- 
































c 


m 


1 -H 


o 
































o 




1 rH 


o 
































•H 


» 


1 H 










o 






















=r 


4-> 


t- l 


1 -rH 


CO 


o' 


CM 


in 


t— 




o 


o 




on 




t — 


o 






ON 


•H 


1 


I z: 


c 


CO 


on 


vo 


CM 




CM 


o 


=t 


=r 


ON 


CM 


t — 






* — 


C 


CM 




•r-t 


on 


3- 


in 


• 




CO 


o 


t~- 


o 


t^ 


ON 


* — 






• 


3 




1 c 


i_ 


• 


• 


• 


in 




• 


• 


in 


« 


o 


• 


• 






in 


P 


» 


1 -H 


CO 


ro 


t— 


in 


CM 




vO 


o 


• 


CM 


• 


CM 


c— 






=T 


E 


CM 


I v — ' 


s: 


CM 


m 


,_ 


CM 




"" 


o 


CM 


CO 


CM 


T_ 


CM 






=T 


< 


| 


1 co 


































rH 




1 L. 










CO 






















CO 


CO 




1 CD 










vO 






















=T 


c 


CO 


1 i— 1 




CM 


=r 




t— 




in 






T— 






t>- 






CO 


O 


CU • 1 


1 r- 1 




CO 


st 


;=r 


• 




T 


o 


ON 


CO 


CM 


VO 


CO 






• 


•H 


bO O 1 


1 O 




=r 


*— 


o 


CO 




CO 


o 


CM 


CM 


OO 


in 


3" 






m 


4-> 


CO «- 1 


1 Q 


>. 


• 


• 


CM 


o 




• 


o 


o> 


• 


ON 


r- 


• 






t- 


c 


a l l 




E 


i — 


CM 


• 


o 




» — 


• 


• 


iT 


• 


• 


O 






o 


cu 


CM 1 


1 CU 


i- 


C\J 


vO 


on 


•■ 




ON 


o 


in 


i — 


vO 


CM 


O 






» 


> 


•• ^ — I 


1 4-> 


< 


t — 


i — 


ON 


I — 




on 


o 


CM 


* — 


CM 


CM 


i — 






CM 


c 


rH 1 


1 CO 


































O 


rH -O 1 


1 00 


































o 


C 1 


1 CD 




E 
































4-> CO 1 


1 J- 


>> 


E 


E 


















rH 






* 




•o 


U 1 


1 bO 


J- 


o 


E 


















CO 






CO 




CU 


CO ~ 1 


1 bO 


o 


CM 


=x 


















•H 






cu 




4-> 


Ou CM 1 


1 <C 


bO 
CU 


3 


VO 








•-^ 










(U 




to 


N 

3 




CO 


- 1 1 


1 Q 


4-> 


l~ 


E 








c 










4-> 




iH 


U, 




bO f~ «- 


1 O 


CO 


x: 


E 




•o 




3 










CO 


to 


CO 






cu 


OO *~ 1 


1 Q 


O 


-P 


O 

a- 




c 

CO 




O 










s 


3 
O 


o 

•H 


to 




4J 

c 


1 1 


1 in 


c 


CO 


\ 








c 










c 


CU 


E 


4-> 




»H 


ro o i 


1 CO 


o 


E 


E 




>> 




■iH 










O 


c 


cu 


o 






<U r- | 


1 >* 


•rH 


u 


E 




l_ 


c 


CO 




co 






•H 


CO 


x: 


Oh 






>-• I i 


1 U. 


4-5 


< 


O 




cu 


3 


s: 




CD 


10 




4-> 


rH 


CO 






• • 


o I 




•H 




on 


l- 


rH 


a 


>W* 




•o 


4-> 




•H 


rH 




CU 




1 cu 


4J «— 1 




c 


h 


\ 


co 


rH 






CO 


CO 


0) 


to 


rH 


CU 


J* 


X ^ 


rH 


1 O 


cu i 




3 


rH 


E 


4J 


•H 


>> 


.* 


•O 


c 


;* 


CU 


O 


O 


rH 


O • 


CO 


1 t- 


bfl » 1 




E 


CO 


E 


s_ 


4-> 


> 


c 


E 


cu 


o 


c 


E 


CO 


3 


E O 


4-> 


1 3 


■a =t i 




1 


E 


in 


o 


u 


CO 


CO 


o 


V- 


o 


•H 


CU 


•H 


CO 


CO 4-> 


O 


1 O 


3 1 1 




CO 


CM 


z: 


<c 


2 


H 


CQ 


o 


DC 


s: 


a 


s: 


s.^ 


CU 


H 


1 CO 


CD ON I 



256 



even in the execution year the estimated prices were significantly 
greater than the actual contract prices. Besides resulting in 
consistently inaccurate estimates of how much money would be needed 
to purchase a specific amount of ammunition, this also resulted in 
overfunding of the Consolidated Ammunition Working Capital Fund 
(CAWCF) and thereby caused the problems involved in the return of 
obligation authority to the Services (see below in the section on the 
CAWCF). Another manifestation of instability in the program was the 
constant alteration of price estimates, with an average of four 
standard price lists being published during a PPBES cycle. 

(U) Another cause of instability were changes in requirements. 
With the exception of the Army, however, high dollar items exhibited 
more stable requirements than did other items. As operational 
requirements were considered a Service rather than an SMCA matter, 
the report had relatively little information on or comments about 
changes in requirements, but changes in operational requirements were 
considered the only significant external cause for program 
instability 

(U) Two other linked causes of instability in the past were the 
delayed receipt by the SMCA of program funds and the poor obligation 
rate of the SMCA. The study noted the improvement in these areas in 
FY85, but warned that "it is important that these improvements be 
sustained." (For more on these issues, see the next section on the 
CAWCF . 

(U) Finally, the study noted that as a result of the cyclic nature of 
the PPBES process, these sources of instability had a feedback 
effect upon one other both within a PPBES cycle and on succeeding 
cycles. Thus program instability "is not only self-perpetuating but 
proliferative as well." Moreover, the interconnected nature of the 
system made it impossible to pick any one cause as the primary cause 
of instability. It was possible, however, to find a variety of 
specific improvements in various parts of the cycle that would 
eliminate, or at least minimize, instability in that part of the 
PPBES cycle. 

(U) The study made a number of recommendations, some of them 
requiring action by OSD, to reduce instability in the ammunition 
procurement program. In the area of production base support, the 
study recommended that the SMCA have a greater say in determining the 
acquisition strategy for items which would be transferred to its 
control and that major configuration elements be settled earlier in 
the development process, both of which suggestions would improve 
planning for the production base. The study also recommended that 



257 



the production base support budget compete at the DOD level against 
the resources of all the Services in order to commit them to the 
stability of production base requirements. 

(U) In the area of budget guidance from OSD and the Services' 
Secretariates, the study recommended provisions to preclude 
unrealistic bow waves and to stabilize operational requirements and 
minimize program changes. 

(U) In the area of pricing, the study recommended that SMCA 
develop a procedure to better estimate both near term and out year 
prices. The study also urged that only one annual price list be 
promulgated by the CAWCF except under exceptional circumstances. 

(U) In the area of execution, the study recommended that low 
risk ammunition procurements be funded for the full year instead of 
in increments in the event of Continuing Resolution Authority 
situations and that funding policies be revised so that OSD rather 
than the Services would give to SMCA the program and funding 
authority for low risk ammunition procurements, while still 
maintaining the identity and integrity of the individual Service 
appropriations. It also recommended that OSD release funds within 10 
calendar days of an appropriation act or Continuing Resolution 
Authority. The study further recommended that the SMCA provide a 
weekly report with the following information: estimated current year 
procurement programs in total dollars, by Military Service; total 
current year program dollars accepted into the CAWCF, by Military 
Service; total current year program dollars that the Military 
Services have stated that they cannot provide to the SMCA within the 
60-day limit, by Military Service; and current net obligations by the 
CAWCF compared to both annual and monthly obligation goals. 

(U) In addition, the study recommended the timely execution of cost 
variance analysis and the prompt return to the Services of any excess 
funds identified by that analysis as well as having the SMCA report, 
no later than 31 December of each year, the status and planned 
disposition of all expiring year funds. 

Consolidated Ammunition Working Capital Fund (CAWCF) (U) 

(U) Criticism of the CAWCF had resulted in FY84 in a number of 
significant management actions to improve the operations of the 
CAWCF. 21 As a result of the success of those actions, a further 
ambitious obligation plan was developed for FY85 in order to continue 
the improved performance momentum. Included as part of the plan was 
the intensified use of short-of-award procedures, the establishment 



121 For more details on the FY84 actions, see FY8A AHR. 



258 



and tracking of challenging obligation goals, expeditious funding 
authority transfers from the Office of the Secretary of Defense to 
the military Services and from the Services to the SMCA, and the 
movement of the heavy procurement workload from the third quarter to 
the second quarter of the fiscal year. 

(U) This plan proved highly effective and resulted in an obligation 
rate of almost 85 percent, the highest ever attributable to this was the 
early receipt by the CAWCF of the Services obligation authority. In 
FY85 the CAWCF had received about 55 percent of the total DOD program by the 
end of the first month of the fiscal year, a remarkable achievement 
when compared with the previous year in which it had taken the fourth 
month of the fiscal year to reach that amount. "As a result, the 
entire fiscal year 1985 planning cycle was moved forward in the year, 
thereby permitting obligations to occur much earlier." See table on 
the following page. 

(U) Based on the assumption that the FY85 trend toward early release 
of program funds would be continued in FY86 , the SMCA set a goal to 
have the CAWCF obligate 75 percent of its procurement program within the 
first 6 months of the fiscal year and achieve an obligation rate of 
87 percent. 

(U) One problem that had existed in previous years was that the CAWCF 
had returned funds to the Services late in the fiscal year when 
actual contract costs proved to be less than the projected cost. The 
problem that arose from this was that the money returned to the 
Services had to be obligated by them before the end of the fiscal 
year if they were to be retained for use by DOD. Returning them to 
the Services late in the fiscal year thus made it difficult for the 
Services to effectively use this money. As a result a procedure was 
established by which these funds would be returned to the Services no 
later that the end of April of each year. That date "was selected 
because it provides the Services sufficient time to reobligate those 
funds before they expire and without creating program turbulence due 
to hastily conceived procurement adjustments. During FY85 the 
following funds were returned to the Services, with the FY83 funds, 
which would expire at the end of FY85, being returned in accord with 
the new procedure. 



259 





















> 




s_ 


rH 














O 1 




0) 


ro 














2 




P 


3 


vO 








« — 


• • 




1 < 


t- 


-P 


cr> 








in 


P 


•> | 


1 C_> 


ro 


O 


=T 


on 


OO 


sr 


OO 


U 


C 1 


i :>: 


3 


ro 


C\J 


t- 


=r 


on 


on 


o 


O 1 


1 CO 


cr v 


V. 


m 


in 


■=r 


\ 


o. 


•r-l 1 






i— i 


oo 


v. 


\ 


N, 


on 


cu 


P 1 


1 o 


si 


ro 


on 


on 


«— 


i— 


« — 


cc 


•H 1 


i p 


.p 


o 


oo 


o 


CM 


in 


c^ 




C 1 




=r 


bO 


C\J 


3- 


in 


=r 


on 


r-i 


3 1 


1 "O 
















ro 


E 1 


1 CD 
















3 


E 1 


1 l_ 


u 


rH 












C 


< 


1 S_ 


(i) 


ro 












C 




1 <V 


P 


3 


on 








CM 


< 


rH 


1 «« 


i- 


-p 


o\ 








* — 




ro i 


1 tO 


ro 


o 


i — 


OO 


t — 


* — 


in 


*» 


C 1 


1 C 


3 


ro 


C\J 


c— 


i — 


on 


on 


c 


O 1 


1 ro 


cr v 


\ 


on 


in 


st 


"s. 


o 


•H 1 


1 s_ 




i—i 


f — 


\ 


V 


■s. 


t- 


•H 


P 1 


1 E- 


TJ 


ro 


CM 


on 


\o 


cy> 


CM 


-P 


C 1 




t- 


o 


C\J 


CO 


CJv 


CM 


in 


•r-t 


CU 1 


1 ^"^ 


m 


bO 


CM 


on 


=T 


=r 


rn 


c 


> 1 


1 tO 
















3 


C 1 


1 s_ 
















P 


O 1 


I ro 


j_ 


i-t 












t 


c_> 


1 rH 


CU 


ro 












<S 




1 i— 1 


4-> 


3 


* — 








vO 




i~ 


1 o 


u 


P 


vO 








CM 


rH 


O 1 


1 X) 


ro 


O 


OO 


o 


on 


en 


i — 


ro 


<M 1 




3 


ro 


f — 


c^ 


VO 


on 


on 


c 




1 <w 


cr -v 


\ 


on 


=r 


ST 


\ 


o 


J- 


1 o 




rH 


o 


v. 


v. 


V, 


o 


•H 


0) 1 




•o 


ro 


t— 


CM 


t- 


t — 


t» 


P 


bD 1 


l to 


c 


o 


oo 


CM 


«— 


vO 


cr> 


c 


ro I 


1 c 


CM 


bO 


J — 


on 


=r 


on 


CM 


cu 


C 1 


1 o 
















> 


ro i 


1 -H 
















c 


2: 


1 rH 
















o 




1 rH 


f~ 


rH 












o 


cu 


1 -H 


CO 


ro 














«H 1 


1 E 


-p 


3 


o 








CO 


J- 


bO 1 




J- 


-P 


CM 








in 


o 


c 1 


1 C 


ro 


CJ 


oo 


=r 


on 


t — 


o 


d-l 


•H 1 


1 -H 


3 


ro 


1 — 


on 


c— 


on 


on 




co 


1 ^-^ 


cr^v 


V. 


on 


sr 


=T 


N 


J_ 








h 


m 


\ 


\ 


\ 


CO 


o 


cu 


1 E 


4-) 


ro 


o 


CM 


on 


i — 


CM 


•P 


.c 1 


1 ro 


to 


o 


=r 


sr 


i — 


t- 


CM 


o 


4-> 


1 s~ 


i — 


b0 


t — 


CM 


on 


CM 


CM 


cu 




1 bO 
















u 


<w 


1 O 
















•H 


1 


1 J- 
















Q 




1 a. 
















CU 


to 

3 


1 o 
















> 


p 1 


1 > 
















•H 


ro l 


1 CO 
















-P 


p 1 


1 J 
















3 


CO 1 


1 H 
















O 




1 Z 












CO 
O. 




CU 


■a 

c 1 


1 in 












J- 




UJ 


ro • 1 


1 CO 










cu 


o 






=r l 


1 JM 










o 


CJ 






to I 


1 It, 


cu 








i~ 






• • 


10 o. 1 




o 








o 


cu 




cu 


cu I 




•H 








u, 


c 


rH 


o 


t- •> l 




> 




>, 


>> 




■H 


ro 


i~ 


bo in 1 


1 


i~ 




E 


> 


J- 


u 


p 


3 


O 00 | 




CU 




j- 


ro 


•H 


ro 


o 


o 


i- o> 1 




CO 




<c 


2 


<i 


s: 


H 


co 


D- r- 1 



260 



Source Year Excess Funds Returned to the Services 
(In Millions of Dollars) 



Service 


FY83 


FY84 


FY85 




TOTAL 


Army 


33.7 


27.1 


90.4 




151.2 


Navy 


6.8 


12.2 


24.1 




43.1 


Air Force 


5.0 


11.2 


9.5 




25.7 


Marine Corps 


13.8 


24.9 


15.9 


54 


.6 



Source: Executive Director for Conventional Ammunition, 
Annual Report: Progress and Status of the Single Manager for 
Conventional Ammunition, Nov 1985, p 8. 



(U) In response to criticism of the operation of the CAWCF in 
FY82 and 83, a major study of CAWCF operations with the goal of 
"Increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the CAWCF as a 
financial management mechanism" was started in FY85. The study was 
to consist of a "vertical analysis of CAWCF operations extending from 
the issuance of OSD guidance, through Department of Army /major 
subordinate command support and other Military Service interfaces, to 
program execution." In order to ensure a fresh independent outlook on 
CAWCF operations, the study was contracted out. It was completed in 
November 1985, and the report, together with its implementation will 
be discussed in the AHR for FY86. 

(U) The SMCA Annual Report was used to make two major 
recommendations, both concerning the financial operations and 
management of the program, and both of which were also discussed, at 
least in part, in the previously cited instability study. The first 
issue, which had also been raised in FY84, concerned the funding for 
the nonreimbursable portions of the program, Production Base Support 
and Operations and Maintenance (0&M) funding for the SMCA. Both were 
currently funded by the Army out of its Operations and Maintenance, 
Army funds, despite a 1979 GAO warning that the program would suffer 
if the Army was forced to absorb all the costs without additional 
funding from DOD. The annual report stated that, based on annual 
procurement program funding, the Army program was approximately 50 
percent of the SMCA program, and noted the GAO study's argument that 
the additional cost to the Army of acting as Single Manager for 
Conventional Ammunition should be provided for by DOD. The report 
warned that the situation could become serious "in the austere 
budgets that lie ahead" and repeated its position of the past two 



261 







CT> f- 


CM 








I * — 


• • 


• 


N r\] in 




1 cr> 


CT> t— 


CO 


• • 4 


1 > 1 

1 z 1 




1 >-• 


VO r- 


LO 


VO O vO 




1 it, 


t- on 


•=J" 


f— OJ IT 










LTi =t r- 


Report: 
ition, 




1 o 


«- CM 

• • 


CTl 

• 


CT\ C- CM 


1 c 1 

1 rH 3 | 

1 CO gj 




1 cr\ 


o ro 


vO 


• • • 


1 3 E I 

1 c "=£ 




1 >H 


< — i — 


CX» 


m co in 


1 (0 


t tt, 


c— r\j 


■=r 


vOvOCM 


1 c 


1 t—\ 

1 r-\ 
1 CD 
1 «m 
1 -P 
1 l- 
1 O 




CO r- 


c~- 


inmr- 


munition, Ai 
Conventional 


I s: 


cp> 


• • 


• 


o\ in a- 


1 CO »-> 


1 CO 


=r >~ 


c~- 


• • • 


1 V. w 


» 


vO CO 


c— 


CM ^3" CO 


l n t, 


Lu 


=T i- 


C\J 


O VO 0O 


1 E CD 








in on t- 


1 CD rH 










1 < 


1 i. i-H 










1 j_ i 


1 bO O 










1 rH O 


1 O X> 










1 CO Cm 1 


ts/Pr 
s of 




cm m 


CT> 




invention 
Manager 


1 c c 


CO 


• ♦ 


• 


ct\ vo ro 


1 0) O 1 


co 


in «- 


on 


• • • 


1 E T-l 


>-l 


on o 


on 


•=r o\ m 


1 CO rH 1 


It, 


vO CM 


=T 


co in cm 


1 1. H 
1 -H -H 1 








=r CM CM 


1 C_> CD 


Requ 
(in m 










' for 
Singl 


l cc i 

1 CK | 

1 < i 




LA r- 


■=r 




l co 1 
1 j-> x: 1 

1 O 4-> 1 

1 CO 


l a. i 


t»~ 


• • 


• 


CO vO CM 




co 


vo O 


vO 


• • • 


1 1, (h 1 


1 < i 


>H 


a\ ^> 


IT\ 


CO r- t~- 


1 -H O 1 


1 O 1 


It, 


m c\j 


' — 


CO CTi CTi 


1 z: I 

1 CO 1 




4-> 




■3" co 


tive ; 
tatus 






C TJ 




4J 


3 CO 1 






co cu 


rH 


C T3 


1 






E E 


r-i 


0) CO rH 


CO "O 1 






a> e 


CD 


E E rH 


X c • 1 






t- CC 


Cm 


Q> E CD I 


W CO CM 1 






•■H l. 


■P 


J~ CD (h 1 


on j 






3 b 


i- 


•H L. 40 | 


w 1 






CT C 


o 


3 bO U 1 


*• w 0, 1 


i J 




CO u 


£Z 


a" 1 


CO CO 1 




-o 


dc a 


CO 


<U J- JC 1 


O L. •> 1 




c 


< 




cc a- co 1 


L bO in 1 




3 


<n 


<c 




3 O CO 1 




It, 


a, 


o 




O U CT, I 

co a, t- 1 



262 



years that production base support and SMCA O&M costs should compete 
at DOD against the funds available for all the services. See table 
on the following page. 

(U) The second recommendation involved the position of SMCA that the 
DOD Comptroller was too involved in day-to-day management of the 
CAWCF rather that providing general guidance. The annual report 
recounted in some detail an incident in which AMCCOM revised a 
"negative surcharge" (discount) from 3% to 7.5% in the annual June 
1985 standard price list, only to have DOD in August direct that the 
FY86 and 87 ammunition procurement plans be recalculated in accord 
with the previous discount, leaving the Services little time to make 
the adjustments prior to submitting the FY87 budgets to DOD. 

(U) Although it is concluded that OSD acted within its authority, 
it is considered that such manipulation of the CAWCF was both 
typical and damaging. The CAWCF has been operational for four full 
years. Apart from the policy guidelines in the CAWCF charter, not one 
scintilla of formally published pricing guidance has been issued. It 
would seem that OSD (Comptroller) would serve the Department of 
Defense better by diverting energies to the development of such 
guidance, rather than by directing massive repricing efforts at 
precisely the wrong moments in the budget cycle. It is believed that the 
benefits of program stability, which include obvious economic 
pay-offs from the chance to make rational decisions in planning and 
executing ammunition procurement, would far exceed the relatively 
small net amounts saved by OSD in Program Budget Decision marks. 

Logistics (U) 

(U) The SMCA logistical management consisted of functional 
support and operating the logistics support base. This included the 
receipt, issue, warehousing, and inspection of munitions at storage 
locations; performance of minor maintenance, and demilitarization and 
disposal. All of these activities were funded by the SMCA, and thus 
were one of the areas for which the SMCA wished to have the funding 
system changed so that these functions would compete for funds at the 
DOD level rather than at DA. Other SMCA-provided logistics functions 
were financed by the Services. The Annual Report noted that 
although the logistics program was overall being conducted in an 
efficient and effective manner, "O&M funding constraints, especially 
fiscal year 1988 through the end of the current POM period, will 
challenge the ability of the SMCA to provide the degree of logistical 
support needed to maintain a high readiness posture by the Military 
Services. " 



263 



ICAMP (U) 

(U) The Integrated Conventional Ammunition Maintenance Plan (ICAMP) 
was a document, somewhat similar in nature to the ICAPP, which 
integrated the wholesale maintenance planning of the four Services. 
The FY86-FY92 ICAMP was published on 30 September 1985 and covered 
both major maintenance (modification, conversions, component 
replacements) and minor maintenance (external, packaging, and 
preservation) . 

(U) Its line item analysis of the Services major maintenance plans 
resulted in 52 recommendations. 



Summary of ICAMP Major Maintenance 
Recommendations 



Service 


Recommendations 


Accepted 


Declined 


Pending 


Army 


8 




8 








Navy 


42 




39 


1 


2 


Air Force 


9 












Marine Corps 
Total 


2 
52 




2 
49 



1 2 






Source: Integrated Conventional Ammunition Maintenance Plan, 
FY86-FY92, Part I, 30 Sep 1985, p. I-II . 



(U) Recommendations included proposals to consolidate or reschedule 
programs, revise program quantities, to increase certain programs to 
offset shortfalls in other programs, and to delete programs. The 
report also repeated 10 general recommendations made in the previous 
ICAMP, gave the current response or status of the recommendation, and 
added an eleventh recommendation 

General Recommendations of the ICAMP (U) 

RECOMMENDATION: Obtain contract authority for the CAWCF. 
RESPONSE: Has gained some significant support but is still opposed 
by the OSD Comptroller and the House Appropriations Committee 
staf fer. 



264 



RECOMMENDATION: AMCCOM develop procedures to consolidate the 
Services component and packaging requirements for the entire ICAMP 
period. RESPONSE: Being done for the first two years of the ICAMP 
study period with a projection for the following five year period. 

RECOMMENDATION: Exclude ammunition from the Resource 
Conservation and Recoverability Act. RESPONSE: Army negotiations 
with OSD and the EPA were continuing. 

RECOMMENDATION: AMCCOM program for an additional 5,000 short 
tons of minor maintenance in FY86 in order to achieve a management 
level in FY87. RESPONSE: The current plan would reach the management 
level, 18,000 tons, in FY87, one year earlier than previous plans 

RECOMMENDATION: The CAWCF stock commonly used high 
turn-turnover repair components and packaging material. RESPONSE: 
The recommendation is pending, and a procurement policy to accomplish 
it has been approved by the Services. 

RECOMMENDATION. The Army conduct a survey of the adequacy and 
useful life of its current ammunition maintenance facilities. 
RESPONSE. See item 7. 

RECOMMENDATION: The Army develop a model maintenance 
facility. RESPONSE: The U.S. Army Defense Ammunition Center and 
School was to conduct a survey of current facilities and develop a 
model maintenance facility, with the study planned for FY88. 

RECOMMENDATION: Improve mobilization/post-mobilization 
maintenance capabilities. RESPONSE: Ways of doing this were to be 
explored. 

RECOMMENDATION: AMCCOM study the need for facility and 
equipment investments and the impact if they were not made. RESPONSE: 
Coordination with developers and engineers would continue to ensure 
proper facility and maintenance support. 

RECOMMENDATION: AMCCOM to assure that maintainability 
standards be provided for each item as it transitions from R&D to 
full scale production. RESPONSE: Coordination with developers to 
assure that it was continuing. 

RECOMMENDATION: Support of the DSACS maintenance module. 
RESPONSE: Systems submitted for DSACS implementation included a 
computerized program applicable to Army Depot Maintenance Work 
Requirements (DMWR) , an ammunition peculiar equipment (APE) asset 
listing identifying APE location and condition codes, and Maintenance 



265 



(U) The Annual Report of the SMCA noted that the status of major 
maintenance, as shown in the ICAMP, was good. The backlog of major 
maintenance had been reduced to a manageable level, one year's 
generation or approximately 16,000 short tons, and the slippage of 
minor maintenance programs was rarely due to faulty planning. When 
minor maintenance programs did slip, it was usually because of an 
unforeseen problem after work began, such as a change in the scope of 
work, or priority, or an occasional delay in component delivery. As 
further evidence of the status of major maintenance, the report 
pointed to a DOD IG inspection. The inspection was a preliminary 
survey of major maintenance for ammunition being conducted prior to a 
formal audit. The formal audit, however, was cancelled by the DOD IG 
because it found that "the Single Manager for Conventional Ammunition 
was effectively coordinating and accomplishing major maintenance." 

Supply (U) 

(U) The supply indicators for FY85 were generally positive. The 
Materiel Denial Rate continued to decline, although it had not yet 
fallen to its goal of 1%, and significant improvements were made in 
the areas of Materiel Denials Inventory Accuracy Rate and Location 
Record Accuracy. The percentages for Receipts Posted/Stowed On Time 
and Location Audit Reconciliation rates declined slightly from FY84, 
but the annual report stated that "a continuing positive trend was 
still maintained." One problem area was inaccurate data on the time 
It took to handle various priorities of requests, with the Joint 
Ordnance Commanders Group, Supply Group, attempting to come up with 
an improved system during FY86. 

Physical Inventory Study (U) 

(U) In May 1985 the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense 
(Logistics and Materiel Management) asked the Logistics Systems 
Analysis Office (LSAO) to conduct a study "to analyze and evaluate 
physical inventory policies, procedures, and practices for 
conventional ammunition." The resulting study was published in 
September 1985 and found that even though the dollar value of 
ammunition inventory adjustments appeared large, actual losses were 



* ^ unless otherwise cited, the information of the LSAO study was taken 
from LSAO, Physical Inventory of Ammunition, Sep 85. 



266 



minimal. Nevertheless, inventory record errors could result in 
erroneous supply actions and unnecessary effort. While ammunition 
security problems existed, the majority occurred after issue; 
consequently, physical inventory of ammunition i s not required. 

The study did, however, identify four problem areas in which 
improvements were required. These areas included inconsistencies 
between inventory management and security directives, weaknesses in 
the way the Army conducted physical inventories of ammunition, the 
need for a standard DOD LOGMARS (Logistic Application of Automated 
Marking and Reading Symbols) policy, and high personnel turnover 
among ammunition inventory counters. 

(U) In the case of directives the study found that guidance for 
ammunition inventory policy was split between inventory and security 
regulations and that "often policies are not perpetuated from one 
regulation to another, terms are not common between regulations, and 
inconsistencies and voids exist." Examples included the fact that 
although a security directive required that certain missiles and 
rockets be inventoried twice a year, the inventory regulations did 
not contain that requirement; the use of the term "sensitive item" in 
a security directive while documents that it referenced failed to use 
that terra, except in an appendix, and never fully defined it; while 
as an example of voids, the study noted that specific guidance was 
given for Category I missiles and rockets but not for Category I 
explosive warheads. In answer to these problems the study 
recommended that OSD ensure that inventory and security regulations 
be compatible with one another, that voids be eliminated, and that 
terminology is clear. The study also recommended that MILSTRAP 
(Military Standard Transportation Reporting and Accounting 
Procedures) be changed so as to consolidate into one section all the 
guidance on physical inventory procedures for ammunition. 

(U) The study took issue with the way the Army conducted its 
physical inventory of ammunition, although it noted that the Army 
procedures were in accord with current DOD guidance. The Army, 
unlike the other Services, used a nonblind inventory in which the 
inventory counter knew what the inventory should be. The Army 
supported this policy as more efficient since "by providing the 
counter with the custodial record balance for the first count, 
discrepancies between custodial records and the magazine data cards 
could be immediately identified and a physical count initiated," 
without the need for a return visit to the storage site that would be 
required if only the inventory office knew the correct count and 
could detect the discrepancy. The study, however, cited Army Audit 
Agency criticism of this practice and noted that "when a physical 
count is performed, prior knowledge of custodial record balance may 
influence the count." 



267 



(U) The report also criticized the Army's use of magazine cards to 
furnish the data for the physical inventory. The report noted that 
other Services also performed inventories by using aggregate quantity 
markings on unopened containers rather than an actual physical count, 
but argued that the Array's use of magazine card balances had a 
greater risk of being in error since magazine cards recorded the amount 
of similar items stored together but not banded together and, "a box 
whose removal is not recorded on a magazine card is less likely to be 
detected than a container which has been cut opened or a pallet whose 
banding has been cut." The study also noted that although elimination 
of the use of the magazine card would result in the need for 
additional resources for inventory counts, the advent of LOGMARS 
markings on containers would make it possible to perform blind 
Inventories, counting individual containers with less resources than 
were currently used for nonblind inventories using magazine cards. 
The study noted that the Navy was using and the Air Force planned to 
use LOGMARS markings on containers for inventories, and suggested 
that the Army do the same. 

(U) This was related to the recommended changes, DOD policy on 
LOGMARS. LOGMARS was the use of machine readable bar codes on 
equipment or supplies. The study noted that the Services differed 
in their use of LOGMARS. The Navy, for example, could use LOGMARS 
quantity markings on containers to determine inventory while the Army 
was not planning to use LOGMARS for physical inventory purposes. The 
Navy was scanning LOGMARS bar codes with a laser gun scanner while 
the Army was using a less effective non-laser wand, and was 
apparently unaware that the Navy had shown the laser gun scanner to 
be safe to use with ammunition and was in fact using it in ammunition 
magazines. Finally, despite the fact that the Services claimed to 
have adopted common shipping labels, The Army and Navy in fact 
required different LOGMARS shipping labels. Therefore, the study 
recommended that a common DOD policy be adopted on the use of LOGMARS 
for physical ammunition inventory, and that "the Navy approach should 
be the baseline for implementation by all DOD Components." 

(U) The study found a significant personnel problem among ammunition 
counters, the people who performed the actual physical inventory. 
Turnover among these personnel was as high as 50 percent with an average 
tenure of six months, leading to such problems as lack of expertise 
and more frequent errors, loss of production due to heavy training 
requirements, the diversion of management attention to training and 
closely monitoring the operations of inexperienced personnel, loss of 
personnel resources during recruiting, and poor morale. The turnover 
problem was caused by the low grades, especially in activities where 
positions were reclassified from wage board to GS positions — with 
the ammunition counters frequently making the lowest salary in the 



268 



activity. In contrast, at one contractor-owned facility the 
ammunition counters, with similar responsibilities to those in the 
Civil Service, had salaries which were double those found at some 
government facilities (there were also wide variations in pay among 
government-owned facilities) and had an average tenure as ammunition 
counters of over 20 years. The report noted that various government 
facilities have taken a number of measures to try to 

correct this problem, including assigning additional responsibilities 
to ammunition counters in an effort to upgrade their classification, 
using military personnel to perform that function, and having higher 
salaried contractor personnel perform that function. In its 
recommendations the study suggested that the Services consider all 
three of these options as ways to correct this problem. 

Demilitarization (U) 

(U) The SMCA Annual Report noted that considerable progress had been 
made in reducing the demilitarization stockpile since the 1982 Blue 
Ribbon Report on Demilitarization. The stockpile had been reduced 
from the then existing 220,000 short tons to approximately 173,000 
short tons by the end of FY84. The downward trend continued in FY85 
with the reduction of the stockpile to 155,000 short tons; however, 
that was considerably in excess of the FY85 goal of no more than 
87,000 short tons. Even worse was the fact that at currently 
programmed funding levels the stockpile was projected to grow rather 
than decline in the next several fiscal years, with an anticipated 
stockpile of 173,000 short tons in FY86 versus the blue ribbon goal 
for that year of 78,000 short tons. 

(U) A legal problem in the demilitarization program that developed in 
late FY84 continued through FY85 and into FY86 . The problem 
originated when the State of Kentucky cited the Lexington 
Bluegrass Depot Activity (now known as the Lexington Bluegrass Army 
Depot) and stated that its demilitarization of certain chemical 
munitions was in violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery 
Act (RCRA) . This developed into a dispute between AMC and the Protection 
Agency over the status of ammunition slated for demilitarization. DOD 
argued that such ammunition should not be considered hazardous wastes 
and subject to RCRA until the demilitarization process actually began 
while the EPA argued that such ammunition was subject to the RCRA 
when the decision to demilitarize it was made, and that all 
subsequent storage and transportation was subject to the requirements 
of the RCRA. In addition, the EPA "did not concur in the concept 
that DOD and Military Service regulations are totally adequate to 
protect human health and the environment, and cited several 
deficiencies to support its case." This issue continued into FY86 and 
had a potential high dollar cost attached to it since the victory of 
the EPA position on when ammunition was subject to the RCRA would 



269 



result in a situation in which "each demilitarization operation will 
have to be handled on a site-by-site, case-by-case basis with the 
involved State being preeminent." 

(U) A dispute also existed concerning the Western Area 
Demilitarization Facility (WADF). Operation of this facility had 
been turned over to the Army in FY84 but as its operation as an 
entire facility was considered to be uneconomical, only those 
portions of it that supported the Hawthorne Array Ammunition Plant 
(HWAAP) mission were kept operational. ^3 This included such areas as 
the administrative center, chemical laboratory, storage area, and 
small item deactivation furnace. However, the fact that WADF was now 
operational, even if the Army was in fact not using most of it, led 
to problems with the state of Nevada. Nevada had been granting HWAAP 
an annual open burning/open detonation permit pending the completion 
of WADF. In March 1985 the latest permit expired and was not 
renewed. This also impacted the "New Bomb" facility which was located 
on National Forest property leased from the Department of Interior. 
It was badly contaminated with unexploded ordnance, and the 
expiration of the open burning/open detonation permit curtailed its 
clean-up, although some contract clean-up operations continued. The 
Army did not directly apply to Nevada for a new permit but instead 
conducted tests at Dugway Proving Grounds to determine the emissions 
that resulted from open burning/open detonations. These tests were 
to be completed in the third quarter of FY86, and "if appropriate, 
the test results will be used to support a new permit request." 

Ammunition Specialist Career Program (ASCP) (U) 

(U) In late FY83 an Ammunition Specialist Career program was 
established in response to a provision in DOD Directive 5160.65 (the 
document which gave the Army the SMCA function) which required the 
SMCA to identify civilian and military positions for career purposes, 
to rebuild the declining civilian expertise in ammunition 
logistics. Its objectives included meeting current and future 
ammunition personnel needs with highly qualified personnel by 
attracting and maintaining careerists in the field, providing 
training and assignment opportunities to personnel in that field, and 
providing central management of a DA personnel inventory and referral 
system for that field. 



123 



For some background on this issue, see the AMC AHR for FY84. 
Information on demilitarization in this history is taken from the 
Executive Director for Conventional Ammunition, Annual Report: 
Progress and Status of the Single Manager for Conventional Ammunition, 
Nov 85. 



270 



(U) As part of this program GS-5 interns in the ASCP took a 103-week 
training program consisting of 58 weeks of classroom instruction at 
the US Army Defense Ammunition Center and School (USADACS) 
followed by 45 weeks of on-the-job training conducted at various AMC 
installations. In the course of this program^the interns were 
promoted to GS-7 after 1 year (while still taking formal classroom 
training) and were promoted to GS-9 upon completion of the on-the-job 
training portion of the program. The first class in the program 
started its training in August 1983 and completed it in September 
1985. 

(U) By the end of FY85. the necessary administrative steps for the 
operation of the career field program had been taken, including the 
assignment of a career program number (33) , the naming of the CG, AMC 
as the ASCP functional chief, the provision of registration 
information to DA major subordinate commands, the start of the 
identification of all ammunition career field positions worldwide, 
the establishment of GS-11 through GS/GM-15 as the levels for 
mandatory DA-wide referral levels for the ASCP, and the establishment 
of USADACS as the DA Central Referral Office for the program. It 
started operations as the Central Referral Office on 17 June 1985 and 
ASCP positions in the targeted grades were beginning to be filled 
through referral lists issued by that office. In June 1985 a DA 
screening panel for the program, the first of what was to be an 
annual requirement, accepted 479 applicants as qualified registrants 
in the program, and 288 of them were rated by the panel for promotion 
and placement. 

(U) Although the ASCP was an Army program, the ultimate goal was for 
a DOD-wide program covering all the Military Services. Currently the 
Navy and Air Force were evaluating the Army program to decide if they 
should join it. 

LOGMARS (U) 

(U) In FY84, at the request of the Military Services, the SMCA field 
operating elements agreed to provide LOGMARS bar coding on ammunition 
shipments starting in FY85. 2 Delivery of bar code readers and 
printers to the 26 SMCA ammunition facilities was completed by 
mid-March 1985, and by 11 April 1985 all facilities were bar coding 
ammunition as they produced or renovated it. Wholesale ammunitions 
stocks in storage were being bar coded when shipped. This permitted 
the Services to use the information provided by the SMCA bar codes in 



10/ 

For more background on this subject, see FY84 AHR. 



271 



their own automated systems. The SMCA Annual Report noted that "of 

special mention is the fact that this notable success was achieved in 

1 ? S 
less than ten months. 

Defense Standard Ammunition Computer System (DSACS) (U) 

(U) DSACS was being developed "to support the SMCA and the Military 
Services in the acquisition, logistics, financial, and management of 
SMCA-assigned conventional ammunition items" by providing "a 
dedicated automated information system that would interface with the 
individual Military Service retail and wholesale ammunition 
management systems through telecommunications media," as well as 
provide access to a variety of ammunition data bases, both those 
common to SMCA and the Military Services and those which apply only 
to SMCA or a specific Military Service. 126 

(U) DSACS had its origins in the original 1981 DOD charter for the 
SMCA, which had included a provision for the SMCA "to develop, design 
and centrally maintain a standard DOD-wide automated data system 
covering the logistics functions in this (SMCA) assignment." Actual 
development of the system began in 1982 with a Joint Service effort 
of concept formulation which resulted in a Mission Element Need 
Statement (MENS) that was approved on 12 May 1983 by the ASA (RDA). 
In October 1983 ASA (RDA) approved the Project Manager Charter for 
the program, and on 7 May 1984 the CG, AMCCOM appointed Mr. Greg 
Legare as program manager. 

(U) FY85 saw a variety of steps taken toward the implementation 
of Quarterly Interservice In Process Reviews; the DSACS 
acquisition plan as well as a request for a waiver to permit the 
leasing of hardware was approved, the DSACS decision paper for 
Milestone I (Concept and Development phase) was approved; and procurement 
authority for the DSACS equipment was delegated to the DSACS 



1 p c 

Executive Director for Conventional Ammunition, Annual Report: 

Progress and Status of the Single Manager for Conventional Ammunition, Nov 

1985. For a further discussion of LOGMRS and ammunition see the 

previous discussion of the LSAO Physical Inventory of Ammunition 

Study. 

Unless otherwise cited, the information on the DSACS comes from the 

Executive Director for Conventional Ammunition, Annual Report: 

Progress and Status of the Single Manager for Conventional Ammunition, 

Nov 85. 
1 77 

Memorandum for the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, 

Development and Acquisition), subj: Defense Standard Ammunition 

Computer System (DSACS) System Decision Paper I (SDPI) — Action 

Memorandum, 30 Jan 85. 



272 



contracting office, an accelerated plan to field the unclassified 
portion of the DSACS in FY86 instead of FY87 was approved; 248 of the 
1,650 milestones for DSACS were completed which kept the accelerated 
program on schedule; reprogramming took care of FY85 unfunded 
requirements; a Request for Production (RFP) for software services 
was released with a closure date of 15 October 1985; an RFP for 
hardware leasing was released with a closure date of 24 October 1985, 
and the Defense Communications Agency started work on the problems 
involved in classified data transmission. 

(U) The program did, however, face some significant personnel and 
funding problems. A $4.5 million shortfall in programmed FY86 
funding threatened the accelerated program for fielding the DSACS in 
FY86. Only 20 of the 46 personnel spaces needed to develop and field 
the unclassified portion of the DSACS were filled due to funding 
constraints. Moreover, those positions were not authorized as 
permanent positions but rather as temporary positions which were to 
expire at the end of FY85. With the expiration of those positions, 
the twenty staffers were put into overhire status, "which appears to 
be a tenuous situation in view of budgeting constraints." This could 
put the program in "serious jeopardy." 

Production Base (U) 

(U) In FY85 the Modernization and Expansion program budget for the 
improvement of the production base totalled $183.2 million for 37 
projects. Of this, $114.4 million was for initial production 
facilities for newly transitioned and first time items and/or the 
expansion of existing capabilities, while $68.8 million was 
for the modernization of existing capabilities. No funds were 
allocated for the support of existing facilities, a category that 
usually included such items as utilities, environment, and safety 
requirements . 

(U) Certain additional programs not included in the Modernization 
and Expansion program also provided funds for the production base. In 
FY85 a total of 14 plants received $37.77 million under the 
Production Support and Equipment Program used to maintain existing 
government-owned production facilities with an active production 
requirement. Under the Layaway of Industrial Facilities program for 



128 



Unless otherwise cited, information on the production base comes from 
Executive Director for Conventional Ammunition, Annual Report: 
Progress and Status of the Single Manager for Conventional Ammunition, 
Nov 85. Some of the major Production Base projects are listed on page 
23 of that report. 



273 



production facilities which were not needed for current production 
but were to be maintained for mobilization production requirements, 
42 projects were funded for FY85 at $20.0 million. 

(U) In FY85 AMCCOM was in the process of developing the Plant Job 
Scheduling Model (PJSM) to be used as a management tool to "estimate 
the yearly production quantities and mix of ammunition within the 
GOCO AAP (Army Ammunition Plant) complex necessary to maintain 
efficient production rates and stable, fully utilized personnel 
levels." It was to be used to develop guidance parameters for the 
FY88-92 POM and for the 1986 Army Materiel Program review. 

McAlester A-Line (U) 

(U) FY85 saw the resolution of a dispute between the Army and Navy 
that had begun the previous year, following the May 1984 announcement 
by the Deputy Secretary of Defense that the McAlester A-line would be 
converted to a PBX bomb loading production line. The Navy's draft 
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on that topic specified that the 
Army would cover all costs for the conversion that exceeded the $13.2 
million already programmed for it by the Navy; however, the Army 
objected to funding a program which was of no benefit to it. 
Eventually, an agreement was reached in which the Army would decide 
at the 35 percent design stage what additional funding, if any, was 
required from the Navy, with the Army being responsible for any 
funding requirements over and above that which was determined at the 
35 percent design stage. With this agreement in hand, an MOU on the 
topic was completed on 25 April 1985. The MOU provided that the 
A-line was to be transferred from the Navy to the Army as soon as was 
mutually convenient, that the Army use the $13.2 million transferred 
to it from the Navy for design and long lead production, that the 
Navy provide any additional funds for the conversion of the A-line 
that were determined to be required at the 35 percent design stage 
and that the Army be responsible for any additional funding 
requirements. 

(U) In accord with the MOU, the A-line was transferred to the Army on 
2 May 1985. The 35 percent design stage was reached on 1 July 1985, and it 
was then determined that no additional funds were required from the 
Navy. Final design was initiated in August 1985. Future projected 
milestones for the program included the award of a contract by the 
Corps of Engineers for work on the facility by 13 march 1986 and 
award of a contract by AMCCOM for long lead time equipment by 28 
November 1985. It was anticipated that the installation of new 
equipment and equipment rehabilitation would be a complished by July 
1987 and that it would be debugged and that proveout would be 
completed by January 1 1 '88. 



274 



Green Salt (U) 

(U) The FY84 AHR discussed efforts taken during that year to 
stimulate commercial interest in producing Green Salt (UF4), an 
essential ingredient in depleted uranium penetrators, from readily 
available uranium hexafloride (UF6). The Department of Energy had 
closed down its conversion plant at Paducah, Kentucky in 1978, and 
it was necessary that a commercial source of Green Salt be developed 
before the stock pile of Green Salt was depleted. Therefore, the Army 
had declared that Green Salt would no longer be provided as 
government furnished materiel starting in FY86. FY85 saw encouraging 
developments from this policy when Nuclear Metals Inc. (NMI) started 
to develope a commercial conversion plant at Barnwell, North 
Carolina in October 1984 and had a successful proveout of it in 
August 1985. The current output was approximately 6 million pounds per 
year, and it supplied 80 percent of NMI's Green Salt requirements. NMI was 
prepared to expand the capacity of the plant on an incremental basis 
up to a total capacity of 50 million pounds per year and was looking 
at opportunities for additional business supplying either Green Salt, 
depleted uranium metal, or depleted uranium penetrators. In 
addition, Kerr-McGee was developing under contract to Aerojet a Green 
Salt facility in Oklahoma which was expected to be in production 
toward the end of FY86. 

(U) Discussed in the FY84 AHR was the plan to modernize and 
improve the production base for HMX and RDX explosives by 
improvements at the Holston Army Ammunition Plant (HAAP), conversion 
of one RDX line at HAAP to a BACHMANN HMX line, and construction of a 
new MUSALL process HMX facility and several new RDX RACHMANN process 
facilities throughout the United States. 130 i n the FY84 DOD 
Appropriation Act, Congress had inserted language which prevented the 
release of funds for new HMX/RDX facilities until the Army gave 
Congress a master plan. That plan was written in May 1984 and after 
its receipt, and the answers to some additional questions, Congress 
released some of the funds. 



129 For events in FY84, see FY84 AHR. The rest of this section is taken 
from Executive Director for Conventional Ammunition, Annual Report: 
Progress and Status o the Single Manager for Conventional Ammunition, 
Nov 85. 

130 For the background on HMX, RDX, and the new MUSALL process for the 
production of HMX, see FY84 AHR. For the events in FY85, see the 
Executive Director for Conventional Ammunition, Annual Report: 
Progress and Status of the Single Manager for Conventional Ammunition, 
Nov 85. 



275 



(U) By the end of FY85, the status of the program was as 
follows. For creation of a Lawrence Livermore/Morton Thiokol HMX 
MUSALL process demons ration model at Longhorn AAP, three million 
dollars in FY83 funds had been released. This project was on 
schedule, and production from this demonstration model was projected 
to start in the first quarter of FY86. For the final design of a 
scale pilot HMX plant at Longhorn AAP, $4 million of FY85 
money was released. It was anticipated that the funds would be 
obligated in the first quarter of FY86 and that "a full production 
facility will be site located upon completion of the design effort to 
determine production plant configuration." For the modernization of 
facilities at Holston Army Ammunition Plant; $24 million in 
FY85 money was released and obligated. These funds would be used to 
increase the plant's productivity and to improve the mobilization 
capability for production of both RDX and HMX by the BACHMANN 
process. 

(U) In addition, $19.5 million of FY84 funds and $32 million of 
FY85 funds for design and engineering work on the RDX mobilization 
base expansion effort were still on hold by congressional directive 
at the end of FY85. At issue was the optimum size of the new RDX 
facilities to be constructed at the Louisiana AAP, the Joliet AAP, 
the Alabama AAP, the Indiana AAP, and the Iowa AAP. Three separate 
studies of this issue had been made, and the resulting Army position 
was sent to Congress on 5 November 1985 

Sustainability Study (U) 

(U) On 24 January 1985 the Deputy Secretary of Defense ordered a 
joint OSD/DA analysis to determine how DOD could build indefinite 
sustainability under alternative scenarios, how the Services 
determined their mobilization requirements, and "the balance 
among all major components of the munitions production capability and 
reserve inventories." This analysis was due to have been completed by 
October 1985,but the due date slipped to late in the first quarter 
of FY86. "When complete, the study should provide an academic 
demonstration of a recommended method for making rational decisions 
to achieve ammunition sustainability." 

SMC A Cost Avoidances (U) 

(U) In FY84 a system known as The Optimum Cost Avoidance Methodology 
(TOCAM) was developed as a way to report SMCA cost avoidances. It 
"significantly improved the credibility of reported SMCA cost 
avoidances.*. * The TOCAM cost avoidance goal for FY85 was $222.7 
million, but SMCA exceeded this goal with total cost avoidances of 

131 For more on TOCAM, see FY84 AHR. 



276 



SMCA Cost Avoidance FY73-FY85 
(in millions of dollars) 



TOCAM Category FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY Total % of 
78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 total 

Ammunition 39.8 72.5 3.5 1.3 75.8 28.5 2.3 280.8 504.5 33.6 

Inventory 

Mgt 

Transporta- 11.5 7.5 12.8 20.3 31.8 39.1 34.2 48.8 2C-6.0 13.7 
tion & 
Traffic Mgt 

Production - - - - 34.4 20.0 26.7 4.3 85.4 5.7 
Base Mgt 

Value En- 37.6 33.7 26.9 97.3 48.6 62.5 48.8 127.9 483.3 32.1 
gineering 

Maintenance - 1.3 1.1 .4 .2 3-0 .2 

Mgt 

Procurement 3.6 72.4 22.9 14.6 113.5 7.6 

Mgt 

Misc. .6 1.6 2.2 .1 

Production 26.4 3.3 11. 3 4.8 .9 1.0 57.3 - 105.0 7.0 
Mgt* 

Total 115.3 117.0 54.5 123.7 196.4 224.6 193-2 478.2 1502.9 100 

•Production Mgt was incorporated into Production Base Management in the 
3rd and 4th quarter of FY84. 

Source: Executive Director for Conventional Ammunition, Annual Report: 
Progress and Status of the Single Manager for Conventional Ammunition, Nov 
1985, p 31. 



277 



$478.2 million. A major contributor to that was $280.8 
million savings in the area of ammunition inventory management, 
compared with FY84 savings in that category of only $2.3 million. Most 
of this was due to the substitution of excess Marine Corps 175mia high 
explosive rounds against the total Korean WRSA (War Reserve Supplies 
Allies) 8-inch howitzer requirement. 

War Reserve Stocks for Korea (U) 

(U) This program was designed to fill war reserve ammunition 
shortages for American forces in Korea and for support of the Korean 
Army. The FY84 program for $125 million was approved at the same 
time as the FY85 program of of $135 million. The Office of the 
Secretary of Defense raised legal questions about the FY84 
program since the money for it was appropriated in an October 1984 
Continuing Resolution after FY84 had ended. The office of the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense (International Security Affairs) 
resolved the legal problems and both the FY84 and the FY85 programs 
were shipped during FY85. 

TMDE Program (U) 

(U) The management of the Army-wide Test, Measurement , and 
Diagnostic Equipment (TMDE) program was assigned to the Commanding 
General, AMC on 27 April 1982, by Secretary of the Army Charter. This 
charter designated the Commander, AMC, as the Department of the Army 
TMDE Executive Agent (DATEA), and designated the Deputy Commanding 
General for Materiel Readiness as the Executive Director for TMDE 
(EDT) to manage total Army TMDE acquisition (including research, 
development, production, and procurement), logistics and financial 
management . 

(U) The AMC TMDE community was comprised of the Office for TMDE 
Management (AMC-TM) at Headquarters AMC and three field 
organizations: the Central TMDE Activity (USACTA) , Lexington, 
Kentucky; the TMDE Support Group (USATSG), Huntsville, Alabama; and 
the Program Manager for Test, Measurement, and Diagnostics Equipment 
(PM,TMDE), Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, which reported to the commander 
CECOM. 



FY85 AHR submission from DCS for Supply, Maintenance and 
Transportation. 



278 



Organizational Data (U) 

(U) The Deputy Executive Director of TMDE was Michael C. 
Sandusky, who on 26 August 1985 assumed the position Deputy Chief 
of Staff for Resource Management, was replaced as Acting Deputy 
Executive Director for TMDE by Robert K. DuBois. 

(U) Although authorized manpower spaces remained stable in FY85 
at 20 civilian spaces and 1 military space, the Headquarters 
restructuring resulted in a planned reduction of 3 spaces from the 
office-one to be lost in FY86, one in FY87 , and the last in FY88. 133 

Management Chapter (U) 

TMDE Management Information System (TEMIS) (U) 

(U) Considerable progress was made in developing and 
establishing the TEMIS system. Milestone Ill-System Development 
was completed. Hardware and operational software for the system 
was acquired through government automatic data processing (ADP) 
excess sources in lieu of new equipment at a cost avoidance savings 
of $1.3 million, reducing the requirement for additional OPA funds to 
finance/software acquisition. The initial sections of TEMIS dealing 
with the Preferred Items List (PIL), the Register, Acquisition 
Management and the TDEB Data Base (Equipment) were totally installed 
and made operational. Resultant efficiencies in operations were 
noted. 

(U) Projected to be completed by FY88 were authorizations data, 
financial management, Test Equipment Modernization (TEMOD), End Item 
(Weapon Systems) information, purge/wash-out data, Test Program Set, 
property book, parameter search information and other management 
data. 



133 



134 



Unless otherwise cited, all sources for the TMDE portion of the 

history are taken from the Office of the Executive Director of TMDE AHR 

input, FY85. This AHR input also included information from USACTA; 

USATSG; and PM. TMDE. For the Headquarters restructuring see the 

Resources. 

See the USACTAS section for further information on TEMIS and the 

computer acquisition of it. 



279 



Review of Equipment Specifications and Organizational Requlremen t s 
for TMDE (U) 

(U) Operation RESORT was initiated to provide a systemic 
mechanism to evaluate the currency of TMDE field requirements in 
Table of Organizations and Equipment (TOE)/Sets, Kits and Outfits 
(SKO) and provide overall quantitative/qualitative validation of user 
needs. It required a taskforce from HQ AMC, US Army Central TMDE 
Activity (USACTA) US Army TMDE Support Group (USATSG), PM-TMDE, 
Equipment Authorization Review Activity (EARA) , TRADOC, and FORSCOM 
personnel that would identify and delete underutilized/obsolete TMDE 
user authorization documents. 

(U) RESORT augmented PM-TMDE efforts in the Infantry Division 
by extending the review/purge process beyond Test Equipment 
Modernization (TEMOD) of all items of TMDE. It was to remove from 
the Army inventory all items having no field utility 
and was also to develop actual usage information on all other TMDE 
for consideration in future TEMOD efforts. 

(U) The program was to be stated on a trial basis at Ft. Bragg 
to test feasibility, and then move through organizations with high 
payoff potential and document results In savings/cost avoidances by 
weight, cube, quantities, dollars and personnel. 

Intermediate Forward Test Equipment (IFTE) (U) 

(U) The Intermediate Forward Test Equipment (IFTE) program 
experienced severe funding problems in FY85 which once again 
threatened the existence of the program. After several deliberations 
in Congress, the 6.3 and 6.4 programs were fully funded, as reflected 
in the 26 September 1984 Congressional Record; however, Congress 
incorporated language in the bill that required, before any of the 
funds authorized for 6.3 and 6.4 programs were obligated, the 
Secretary of the Army to submit a reply to the committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and House of Representatives, providing details 
on: Army doctrine for the maintenance of the equipment now being 
fielded » and the plan for addressing research and development 
requirements for testing equipment. 

(U) In a report to Congress on R&D for testing equipment, the 
Army explained that at the intermediate support level there was a 
need for a modular and reconf igurable standardized test system 
"capable of accommodating the wide range of technology used in the 
design of weapon systems currently being fielded," that it could be 
reconfigured for use at different intermediate levels of support, in 
response to that need. 



V80 



(U) In 1983, an advanced development contract was completed by 
five contractors to define a common (multi-commodity) tester for use 
at the intermediate maintenance level within the divisions and Corps. 
This tester is called the Intermediate Forward Test Equipment (IFTE) 
program. The IFTE consists of a mobile shelter mounted Base Shop 
Test Facility (BSTF) and a man portable Contact Test Set (CTS) . A 
cost and operational effectiveness analysis (COEA) of IFTE was 
performed in 1984. A further detailed analysis was being conducted 
to determine the extent to which the divisional deployment of IFTE 
could be moved to EAC and depot levels in Europe It was 
considered, however, that the IFTE equipment would be the appropriate 
system whatever the level at which it is used. The principal 
consequence of the further analysis, potentially, was a reduction in the 
total quantity of IFTE equipments which should be procured. 
Additional analysis was performed to determine the feasibility 
of employment of IFTE at Echelons Above Corps locations within the 
intermediate maintenance level. 

(U) Based on the congressional restrictions, the Under 
Secretary of the Army directed that the program be held in abeyance 
pending the results of an update to the IFTE Cost and Operational 
Effectiveness Analysis (COEA). The COEA was completed in October 
1984 and initially presented on 7 November 1984. A follow-up 
briefing was prepared and presented on 7 December 1984, clarifying 
salient issues raised and including additional taskings directed by 
the USOFA. Full scale engineering development (FSED) was approved by 
the Under Secretary of the Army on 6 March 1985; however, the effort 
was restricted to one contractor instead of the initially planned 
dual-contractor effort. A 27-month accelerated program schedule was 
directed, with program completion planned for December 1987. 

(U) Following this approval, the Determination and Findings 
(D&F) for FSED was signed and requests for proposals (rep) were 
released on 29 March 1985 to contractors selected during the system 
definition phase of the effort. A source selection evaluation board 
(SSEB) was subsequently convened to evaluate the proposals. 

(U) A letter report was submitted to Congress in response to 
the 1985 Department of Defense Authorization Act, specifically the 
Committee conference item of special interest, Automatic Test 
Equipment. The report outlined Army doctrine for electronic 
maintenance of equipment which was being fielded and R&D requirements 
for testing equipment On 26 June 1985, Under the Secretary of the 
Army was notified by the Senate Committee on Armed Services that 
previous concerns about the IFTE program had been satisfied by the 
"Report on the Army Maintenance Doctrine and Army's R&D Plan For 
Testing Equipment" submitted in April, thereby approving release of 
funds to continue the program. 



281 



(U) During the fourth quarter (August 1985), the General 
Accounting Office (GAO) recommended suspension of the IFTE contract 
award. GOA concerns focused on the COEA developed to support the 
decision to award the development contract, which GAO felt included 
questionable assumptions and excluded some applicable costs. DOD 
responded to the GOA concerns on 17 September 1985 with determination 
that Army proceed with IFTE FSED. A $6.95 million contract was awarded to 
Grumman Aerospace on 18 September 1985 for the FSED effort. 
Quarterly program reviews were scheduled for the US beginning in 
January 1986. A subsequent follow-up analysis was being conducted by 
AMC and TRADOC concurrently with the FSED to address the concerns of 
the Under Secretary of the Army on the Army maintenance doctrine and 
level of IFTE employment . 

Automatic Test Equipment (ATE) Policy (U) 

(U) The Automatic Test Equipment (ATE) Policy, 1 November 1982, 
underwent revision during FY85 to include policy on IFTE and 
simplified Test Equipment (Expandable) (STE-X) and update existing 
guidance. The policy, June 1984, which included IFTE guidance was 
not implemented due to deferral of the FY84 program. This revision 
would establish a comprehensive single ATE policy — from unit to depot 
— for all system developers and users. 

(U) Field comments and responses were evaluated for inclusion 
into the policy. The final policy was scheduled for release by 
2QFY86. 

TMDE Support to 3D Infantry Division and XVIII Airborne Corps (U) 

(U) An information briefing on TMDE was presented on 30 August 
1984 to the Vice Chief of Staff, Army (VCSA) and the Under Secretary 
of the Army. Two taskers resulted from this briefing. The 
first was to review the TMDE logistics support structure for the 3ID 
and report to the VCSA in 60 days on the details of TMDE and logistic 
support in wartime. The second was to conduct a similar analysis of 
the 18th Airborne Corps in a deployment mode to a contingency station 
in a wartime scenario for submission 30 days following the task. 

(U) The 3ID laydown briefing was presented to the Vice Chief of 
Staff, Army on 15 June 1985, after a comprehensive data 
collection/ validation effort. The briefing was presented by the PM, 
TMDE and covered data, displays and observations evaluated during 
the study effort. 



282 



(U) The data collection effort for the second descriptive 
laydown of TMDE support was convened with a working group effort at 
Ft. Bragg, North Carolina, 15-19 April 1985 and 29 April-3 May 1985 
at US Army Central TMDE Activity, Lexington, Kentucky for 
finalization of the study. The results were documented and initial 
coordination was completed. This classified study showed how the 
XVIII Airborne Corps would be deployed, supported and resupplied, and 
the impact of selected force modernization systems that were or would 
be fielded to the contingency forces in terms of a "go-to-war" 
capability. Final coordination was expected to take place early in 
FY86. 

Test Equipment Modernization (TEMOD) - Accelerated Fielding (U) 

(U) In FY85 AMC learned how to do accelerated fielding of 
non-development general purpose TMDE. Even though improvements in 
the deployment process and basis of issue planning were required to 
sustain the rapid deployment achieved in FY85, the force 
modernization program again proved itself capable, through 
intensive management, this time for NDI equipment. 

(U) The Army's TEMOD program had en 1984 found itself in a 
difficult position. Some 30,056 items of TEMOD equipment had reached the 
depot system. Of this, approximately 60 percent was at or beyond 
the normal 1 year manufacturers warranty period. The TEMOD equipment 
was needed to ensure supportability of new electronics prime systems 
and subsystems entering the field in ever increasing quantities. The 
challenge and goal for this true NDI program was to field the new 
items within 1 year of competitive production contract award (all 
TEMOD items were competitive procurements). 

(U) In 1985, 10,221 equipment items of 13 types were deployed 
to seven MACOMs. This required 91 separate material fielding plans. 
During this same year, the TEMOD effort began to effectively purge 
the old, obsolete, or replaced TMDE from the field simultaneously as 
the new equipment was fielded. 

(U) This success required innovations in handling fielding and 
turn-ins. The salient changes were use of the Department of the Army 
Letter of Authority to requisition and retain TEMOD equipment, to message 
Materiel Fielding Plans, to consolidate work loading and planning, 
and the development and use of a TEMOD milestone tracking system. 

(U) TEMOD faced additional challenges which, when resolved, 
would further the deployability of the NDI items. Basis of issue 
planning efforts had to be made more responsive to 
cross-commodity/branch applications. Extension of manufacturer 
warranties from 1 to 3 years was being considered. 



283 



Publication of TMDE Fact Sheets (U) 

(U) Three fact sheets — TMDE Role in the Materiel Acquisition 
Cycle, TMDE Calibration and Repair Support Program, and Test 
Equipment Modernization Program — were published in PM Notes //8, on 12 
December 1985. The publication disseminated articles of interest to 
the Program Manager community. The fact sheets provided general 
information and guidance for PM interface in three of the major areas 
of the Army-wide TMDE program. 

Revision of AR 750-43, Test, Measurement and Diagnostic Equipment (U) 

(U) The initial draft change to AR 750-43 was completed during 
FY85 and was being staffed in FY86. The revision was prepared to 
incorporate recommendations from various sources, to include Tech 
Package Sets (TPS) policy as a separate chapter, and to revise 
existing policy. An AMC supplement was scheduled for preparation and 
publication approximately 60 days following publication of the AR. 

Revision of AR 750-25, Army Test, Measurement and Diagnostic 
Equipment Calibration and Repair Support Program (U) 

(U) Changes to AR 750-25 and TB 750-25 were proposed during FY 
85 to include policies and procedures related to the completion of 
the consolidation of calibration support facilities and to establish 
TMDE support program goals at 95 percent and above for TMDE 
readiness. The remaining 5 percent would be comprised of 3 percent 
or below for owner/user delinquency and 2 percent and below for 
USATSG workload backlog. The net result was to increase the 
visibility of the Army-wide calibration program. 

(U) A draft was completed and was being staffed in FY86. 
Publication was scheduled for the second quarter of FY86. 

Cross-Training Within the TMDE Community (U) 

(U) An informal cross-training program was initiated in AMC to 
provide TMDE personnel with opportunities to enhance their 
experiences by using temporary duty assignments to fill vacancies. 
TMDE operations at various Army organizations were uniquely 
specialized, but cross-training provided the experience /knowledge 
base among key personnel that would prove useful in interfacing 
functions. 

(U) Training assignments included: USACTA Division Chief to a 
120 day assignment at AMC, Office for TMDE Management to fill vacancy 
pending recruitment, the temporary assignment of an AMC Office for 



284 



TMDE Management, Program Integration Specialist, Office for the 
DCSEM Research, Development, and Acquisition; and the 120-day 
assignment of the DESCOM Division Chief as the Chief, Engineering 
Management Division, Office for TMDE Management, to fill a temporary 
vacancy. 

Test Equipment Modernization (TEMOD) - Memorandum of Agreement (U) 

(U) A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was prepared and signed by the 
Executive Director of TMDE and its Commanders of TRADOC, 
Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM), Army Communications 
Command (USACC), and the Army Surgeon General (TSG) for 
implementation of its general purpose electronic test equipment 
(GPETE) Modernization Program. The MOA outlined the scope and intent 
of GPETE modernization efforts, defined responsibilities of the 
MACOMs and established policy for implementation of the program. It 
included the responsibilities of AMC, TRADOC, INSCOM, USACC, and TSG 
in identification and documentation efforts for acquisition of 
commercial off-the-shelf, state-of-the-art GPETE to meet existing and 
anticipated Army testing and measurement meeds. 

Joint Panel on Automatic Testing (JP-AT) (U) 

(U) The chairmanship of the JP-AT transferred from the Air Force 
Systems Command (AFSC) to AMC (Office for TMDE Management) on 1 
January 1985. The panel was chartered by the Joint Logistics 
Commanders to facilitate interservice coordination of the Services' 
automatic test programs. It was comprised of a designated member 
from each command and had seven functional subpanels. 

(U) The JP-AT met quarterly to review subpanel progress and 
provide guidance/tasking on future efforts. Three meetings were held 
in 85 since the chairmanship was transferred to AMC. They were held 
at Naval Ocean Systems Center in San Diego, California, on March 1985; at 
Kelly Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas, in June, and an annual meeting 
was held in Lexington, Kentucky in November. 

(U) Some of the panel's accomplishments were as follows: 

a. MIL-STD-2165, Testability Program for Electronic Systems and 
Equipment, was approved by the DOD Standardization Office. The 
document was published in March. 

b. A contract was issued by the Air Force System Command to 

IEEE to provide technical support for maintenance of the IEEE ATLAS 416/716 
STD for the remainder of FY 85. This effort is joint-service funded 
project. 

c. A draft joint command regulation which would transition the 
JP-AT to a staff-to-staff relationship was being finalized. 



285 



Organizational Data (U) 

(U) USACTA was commanded by Colonel William Phillip Farmer. The 
organization had 3 military and 56 permanent civilian spaces. 
USACTA' s overall budget was $3,325 thousand. 

TMDE Management Information System (TEMIS) (U) 

(U) TEMIS development at USACTA was on-going and was on schedule as 
of the end of FY85. Partial implementation of the system had been 
accomplished as of June 1985. By direction of the Assistant Deputy 
for Materiel Readiness, TEMIS underwent a reevaluation, and 
near-term (FY85) hardware requirements and associated funding were 
drastically reduced. In lieu of waiting for long term funding 
approval, and to preclude slippage of the project because of long 
lead time procurement of hardware, on 28 February 1985 AMC's DCSEM 
Information Management recommended and approved use of the ADPE 
Reutilization Program. In a joint effort by USACTA and MRSA, a 
MRSA-TEMIS Computer Configuration was designed, and approximately 
$1.3 million in excess ADP hardware was acquired at no cost except 
shipping/transportation charges. This computer hardware was in 
place in the MRSA computer room at yearend. The next milestone, Equipment 
Certification/Testing, was scheduled for completion 30 November 1985. 
It was anticipated that the system will be operational by 2QFY86. 

DA Technical Bulletin (U) 

USACTA continued to publish a technical bulletin, DA TB 
43-001-61-Series EIR and Maintenance Digest TMDE, each quarter to 
disseminate technical information concerning TMDE activities to field 
units and higher commands. Since 1QCY83, 10 editions had 
been published. 

TEMOD (U) 

(U) USATA continued to support the Test Equipment Modernization 
Program during FY85 by participating in PM TEMOD sponsored Formal 
Market Investigation/Equipment Demonstrations, and TRADOC TMDE was 
usable, reliable, most effective to maintain, and suitable for Army 
requirements when fielded. Areas of activity included: 

(1) Granting approval for acquisition 

(2) Evaluating of Logistic Support Plans 

(3) Review of TRADOC Letter Requirements, equipment 
specifications, independent evaluation plans, materiel funding 
documents and DOIP Feeder Data. 

(4) Participating in Facility of Use Testing. 

(5) Providing input to the expanded TMDE Modernization Program. 



286 



TMDE Requests (U) 

(U) During FY85, 1,990 requests were processed by USACTA for a 
total of 37,731 items. This represented a total value of 
$348,661,614 from 80 different requesting agencies. It further 
represented a 10 percent increase in acquisition approval requests 
and a 23 percent increase in dollar value over FY 84 levels. Of this 
total, there were 120 disapprovals for 1,932 items costing 
$2,571,694. Continued efforts by USACTA to reduce proliferation 
resulted in the substitution of DA Preferred TMDE or 
previously/registered items in most of these disapproval cases. 
Emergency and priority TMDE acquisition requests processing was 
streamlined during FY 85 to allow completed action of a requirement 
within twenty-four to forty-eight hours after receipt. 

TMDE Acquisition Management Briefing (U) 

(U) A TMDE Acquisition Management Briefing was developed by 
USACTA during FY 85. It was presented on site to DESCOM Depot 
Equipment Managers and Force Modernization/ILS Managers, and to 
AMCCOM, AVSCOM, and TROSCOM Project Developers/TMDE Managers. These 
briefings addressed the Army's TMDE management structure, policies, 
acquisition approval/registration procedures and guidelines, TMDE 
governing documents and Materiel Developer/USACTA TMDE responsibility 
during system life cycle development phases. An atmosphere of 
understanding and improved working relationships within the TMDE 
community was created as the result of these briefings. 

Preferred Items List Improvement (U) 

(U) Efforts by USACTA to improve the DA TMDE Preferred Items List 
(PIL) were emphasized during FY85 as evidenced by the number and 
level of participants at recent biannual DA PIL In-Process Review 
Panel (DATPIP) meetings hosted by USACTA. This forum provided 
the TMDE Commodity Manager, Users or Developer an opportunity for 
input to the DA PIL and its formulation, and it evolved into a 
major TMDE conference. Innovative efforts were underway relative to 
format, functional coding and sectionalization. The USACTA goal 
continued to be proliferation control and standardization with 
emphasis on use of items in the PIL, TEMOD Program, and other type 
classified standard TMDE, and the reduction of non-standard items in 
the Army inventory. 



287 



Commerce Business Dally Review (U) 

(U) Reviews by USACTA of TMDE procurements listed in the Commerce 
Business Daily during FY85 served as a guide to organizations 
conformity to acquisition approval procedures outlined in AR 750-43 
and as a means to assure more thorough effective acquisition 
management. During this period, 42 solicitations of unauthorized TMDE 
acquisition were identified for follow-up action to the requestor. 
This effort resulted in assuring that TMDE was state-of-the-art and 
logistically supportable when fielded. 

Assistance Visits (U) 

(U) USACTA personnel participated in 93 visits, providing 
assistance and guidance to PMs and other materiel developers. 
Also, 20 visits were made of other mission related 

objectives. During these visits, USACTA representatives assisted in 
TMDE planning, selection, verification, testing, and support 
development. USACTA engineers and system analysts reviewed 24 
requirements documents, 404 program documents, 112 test documents, 
and 424 Basic of Issue Plan/Qualitative and Quantitative Personnel 
Requirements Information (BOIP/QQPRI) documents to assure that TMDE 
(including ATE hardware/software) was adequately addressed. 

(U) USACTA personnel also participated in 44 one-week visits in 
support of the Command Logistics Review and Aviation Resources 
Management Survey programs conducted by TRADOC, F0RSC0M, and the 
National Guard Bureau. In addition, 19 visits were conducted 
supporting various ILS reviews to ensure that effective materiel fielding 
was accomplished and evaluated. Increased emphasis on materiel 
fielding resulted in the review of 279 Materiel Fielding Plans (MFP) 
and other related logistics plans and documents such as ARs, Sample 
Data Collections (SDC), Type Classifications (TC), SMART Initiatives, 
etc. These were reviewed and commented upon to ensure the overall 
performance and logistics supportability of fielded TMDE. This 
represented a 39 percent increase in USACTA' s review and evaluation 
of TMDE-related performance and logistics supported documents. 

(U) AR 750-43 . A draft change 1 to AR 750-43 (TMDE) promised a 
more effective program of TMDE management Army-wide and was sent 
forward to AMC in October 1985 with that assessment. 

(U) Manufacturer Facilities Visits . USACTA instituted a 
proactive pilot program to serve materiel developers by having TMDE 
specialists travel to manufacturer facilities to review, recommend, 
approve, and register TMDE on site. This methodology reduced 



288 



acquisition approval time in the Sergeant York program, 
substantially, and was continued in the Apache and Black Hawk 
programs. Other programs were to be added as they were identified. 

US Army TMDE Support Group (USATSG) (U) 

(U) Organizational Data . USATSG underwent a major increase in 
personnel and functions when it absorbed over 200 civilian spaces and 
responsibility for AMC internal calibration. J5 In addition, one 
civilian space was transferred to HQ AMC. Three warrant officers and 
42 enlisted spaces approved for supply support for the three TMDE 
maintenance companies in Europe were lost but then restored as of 1 
October 1985. In addition, the absorption of the AMC internal 
calibration and repair mission resulted in the gain of 1 warrant 
officer and 17 enlisted positions. In another action impacting on 
military personnel, nine positions located at Fort Bragg for the 
support of the 82d Airborne Division received the Paid Parachute 
Designation. Total authorizations as of the end of FY85 stood at 
1,234 civilians and 964 military. 

(U) Other internal organizational actions included the 
consolidation of administrative functions in the Headquarters and 
Headquarters Detachment, which involved the transfer of civilian 
spaces that had formerly been in the Office Services Division of the 
Program Management Directorate. 

Program Management Directorate (U) 

(U) Operating Budget . The USATSG operating budget for FY85 
totalled $78,883 million, including $2,651 million in prior year 
funds. 

FY85 USATSG OPERATING BUDGET (in millions) 

OPA RDTE OMA OMAR TOTAL 

ARMY 12.595* 1.142 44.969 1.449 60.155 

CUSTOMER .156* * .500 18.072 18.728 

TOTAL 12.751 1.642 63.041 1.449 78.883 

* Includes $2,595 prior year funds. 
**Includes 0.056 prior year funds. 
Source: Executive Director TMDE, FY85 AHR submission. 



135 See USATSAC discussion below. 



289 



(U) Procurement of Calibration Equipment . The Army, by Minutes 
of the FY84 Appropriations Act, was prohibited from purchasing 
calibration equipment without the prior approval of the Senate and 
House Appropriations Committees. That prohibition was lifted 25 
October 1984, allowing USATSG to proceed with calibration 
procurements. 

(U) JRL Protests on FMS Cases . Julie Research Laboratories 
protested procurements for the following FMS Cases: 

(1) EG-UDG (RFP DAAHO1-85-R-0360) Calibration Reference 
Set. 

(2) EG UEK (RFP DAAHO1-85-R-0361) Calibration Transfer 
Set. 

(3) SR-VDE and-VDD (RFP DAAH01-85-R-0020) for seven 
Calibration Transfer Sets and one Secondary Reference Set. 

(4) TW-YBP (RFP DAAH01-85-R-0567) one Secondary Reference 
Calibration Set. 

(U) Environmental Enclosures at Pirmasens . A letter contract 
for installation of an Environmental Enclosure Laboratory (EELS) 
System in a leased warehouse in Pirmasens, Germany, was awarded 13 
December 1984. The work began immediately thereafter. The letter 
contract was finalized on 2 May 1985 for $96,022. The installation 
was completed 5 August 1985. This environmental enclosure became the 
US Army Area Calibration and Repair Center, Pirmasens, Germany. 

(U) Contracts for TMDE Repairs . In August 1984, time and 
materials contracts were awarded to Tektronix and Hewlett Packard for 
repair and calibration of TMDE manufactured by those companies. These 
contracts allowed ten USATSG-designated activities to ship their 
equipment directly to the contractor's nearest service center for 
repair. In July 1985, options were exercised to extend these 
contracts for another 12 months. In addition, the contracts were 
expanded to allow five more TMDE activities to use the contracts. In 
December 1984, a time and materials contract was awarded competitively 
to EIL, Inc., for the repair and calibration of all TMDE other than 
that manufactured by Tektronix and Hewlett Packard. This contract 
also allowed ten USATSG activities to ship their equipment to the 
nearest service center for repair. These awards concluded an effort 
which started approximately three years ago to improve the method of 
contracting repair and calibration. 

(U) Independent Assessment of the Army TLD Program . In April 
1985, an independent assessment by the National Academy of Science, 
National Research Council, of the radiological monitoring 
capabilities of the US Army was begun. The contract was awarded 18 
April 1985 for $120,000. The assessment was to be completed and 
documented in a final report by February 1986. 



290 



(U) Procurement Tracking System . An automated procurement 
tracking system was established to monitor the progress of the 
procurement program. One hundred and fifty-five letters were issued. 
The procurement was to be released to the MICOM Procurement 
Directorate in November 1985. Requests for proposals were to be 
issued in January 1986, with award scheduled for June 1986. This was 
the first time that USATSG allowed and considered comments from 
industry on a specification before formal solicitation. 

(U) USATSG Competitive Rate and Small Business Awards . The US 
Army TMDE Support Group Competition Rate for FY85 Direct Army Awards 
was 43 percent (68 percent for all awards including FMS and other 
customers). USATSG Small Business Awards for FY85 were 37 percent of 
the Direct Army Awards and 69 percent of all awards (including FMS 
and other customers). 

(U) Purchase of Texas Instruments Electronic Data Terminals . 
USATSG purchased 115 Texas Instruments electronic data terminals, 
Silent 700, Model 765, which were previously leased to USATSG-CONUS 
and the 95th Maintenance Company. The purchase included a year's 
maintenance and achieved a cost avoidance of $50,705 in the first 
year, in contrast to previous years when conversion from lease to 
purchase was not cost effective. 

Quality Assurance Office (U) 

(U) The Quality Assurance Inspection Program, consisting of 
administrative and technical reviews, evaluated the overall 
capability of the TMDE support facility to perform its mission. The 
Quality Assurance Inspection Program replaced the AMC Surety Field 
Inspection and the DAIG Nuclear Weapons Technical Inspection for TMDE 
activities. The Quality Assurance Inspection Program had 260 TMDE 
laboratories and support units under surveillance. Firm intervals of 
12, 18, and 24 months were established to help accomplish a higher 
percentage of the total inspections, resulting in a yearly average of 
196 inspections. One hundred and twenty-eight inspections were 
scheduled for FY85, with 142 percent completed as of 30 September 
1985. In addition to the onsite inspections, 23 selected 
laboratories were in the technical measurement audit program. During 
FY85, six units were found to have major discrepancies which required 
unit reinspection. A Quality Assurance Worldwide Workshop was held 
18-22 March 1985. The workshop was attended by quality assurance 
personnel from USATSG, USATSAC, 95th Maintenance Battalion, and the 
517th Maintenance Battalion. The purpose of the workshop was to 
discuss changes in the calibration, repair, and inspection program. 



291 



During the second quarter of FY85, a USATSG certification program and 
an outstanding QA award program were implemented to recognize those 
units displaying high standards of quality performance. 

Operations Office (U) 

(U) Revision of AR 750-25 . A major revision was prepared to AR 
750-25, Array Test, Measurement and Diagnostic Equipment Calibration 
and Repair Support Program, to update responsibilities and policies 
for the calibration and repair of TMDE. A draft copy of the proposed 
revision was prepared and staffed within USATSG. A coordination 
draft was developed using inputs from USATSG elements. The 
coordination draft was then to be staffed with AMC MSCs prior to 
staffing with the MACOMs. 

(U) Materiel Acquisition Control . The USATSG Materiel 
Acquisition Control Officer processed 630 materiel acquisition 
requests in accordance with USATSG Regulation 715-2 during FY85. Of 
those processed, 456 were approved for procurement/requisition, 73 
were cancelled/not approved, 131 were returned to the originator for 
additional information/ justification, 18 were placed in hold status 
awaiting funds, and 52 were in process at Materiel Acquisition 
Review Board/US Army Central TMDE Activity at the end of FY85. 

(U) Oplans/Mobilization . USATSG developed final support 
requirements for two AMC logistics plans (LOGPLANS) and provided 
continuous input to all other plans that included refinement of 
overall TMDE resource requirements. Also, it identified and 
subsequently resolved significant shortcomings in the continuity of 
operations (COOP) for all USATSG war plans. 

The division also published Field Manual 29-27 and prepared a 
new J-series TOE for TMDE support companies. All TOE TMDE support 
organizations were brought into the AR 220-1 reporting system through 
USATSG efforts. 

System Analysis Office (U) 

(U) CALMIS Project . The objective of CALMIS was to establish 
a standard recall and control management information system (MIS) 
throughout USATSG on a stand-alone computer. Development of the 
software was completed in September 1985, the first delivery of 
Tactical Army Combat Service Support Computer System (TACCS) field 
units having gone to group headquarters the prior month. The 95th 
Maintenance Company received 11 TACCS field units in September and 
were trained on the TACCS hardware and Calmis software. CALMIS was 



292 



not implemented for the 95th Maintenance Company because of 
malfunctions of the TACCS streaming tape drive used to backup the 
files on the computer's hard disk. 

(U) TEMIS Project . The TMDE Management Information System 
(TEMIS) project received approval authority to develop a centralized, 
comprehensive TMDE life cycle management information system. The 
USATSG was tasked to support in the development of the TEMIS data 
base and to assist the Central TMDE Activity (CTA) in its role as 
proponent agent for the project. During FY85, the Systems Analysis 
Office continued active participation in the project, providing core 
group membership on the project management team and providing data 
extracts from the USATSG data base for input into the TEMIS data 
base. 

(U) CALSIM Project . The Calibration Simulation (CALSIM) 
project was restructured to provide a new computer model, CRYSTAL, 
that had faster turn around time and was easier to use but still 
maintained needed accuracy. The model was developed and was 
undergoing validation at the end of FY85. Compatible techniques and 
algorithms for data to be used in the model were areas of endeavor 
that were expected to reduce the level of manual effort required to 
prepare data for the CRYSTAL model. 

(U) Calibration Interval . New techniques with faster 
processing time and more accurate products were developed for 
calibration interval analysis. These techniques were put in use and 
were expected to result in improved access to analysis and greater 
accuracy therein. 

Metrology Directorate (U) 

(U) AN/GSM-286 and 287 Transfer Set Modernization . A June 1984 
report to the Senate Appropriations Committee defined USATSG* s 
equipment modernization plans for FY85 through FY90. Action was 
taken during FY85 to implement the initial stages of this program by 
developing an updated concept report during March, April, and May of 
1985, then briefed to the field during May and June. Documentation 
defining the first workstation was developed by USATSG during May, 
June and July. In July, MIS 35947 containing specifications for the 
CORE TMDE calibration workstation and the Army's plans for conducting 
a market survey and subsequent procurement were coordinated with 
Senate Appropriations Committee through HQ AMC. With AMC approval, 
the specification for the workstation and the market survey 
questionnaires were mailed to 155 manufacturers of electronic 
equipment. Of these, 21 responded, five in detail. A second survey 
solicited further comments on the specification. A materiel 
acquisition plan was drafted in September. 



293 



(U) International Standardization Organization (ISO) Shelter . 
USATSG was tasked by the Commander of AMC to develop a C-141 Aircraft 
transportable TMDE Support System for calibration and repair support 
of the 9th Infantry Division TMDE. One 3:1 ISO Shelter was borrowed 
from Natick Research and Development Center, Natick, Massachusetts, 
to evaluate its feasibility for use as a calibration and repair 
laboratory and shipping container for the AN/GSM-286/287 set. In the 
period from March to August, a prototype with roll-around benches was 
developed and tested at Fort Lewis 19-29 August 1985. Modifications 
included necessary center loading of racks, workbenches, 
and TMDE and a dedicated pallet for the shelter. The racks and 
workbenches for the center-loading modified prototype were thereafter 
assembled at Redstone Arsenal, and installation into the ISO shelter 
and further Fort Lewis testing was to occur in December 1985. 

(U) Foam Dome . During the fourth quarter FY84, USATSG began 
investigation of quick reaction laboratory/storage construction. 
Principal investigations were centered around foam applications 
because of the simplicity of construction, good insulation properties, 
and the minimal amount of construction equipment/personnel required. 
The concept feasibility was demonstrated by USATSG personnel during 
January 1985 when a 36-foot diameter foam dome was constructed at 
Redstone Arsenal. The project was expanded to include one or more 
foam domes in Europe — 50' diameter structures that would be used by 
the 517th Maintenance Battalion for storage of empty nucleonic waste 
containers in the Pirmasens area. 

(U) Facilitie s. Construction of an 18,900 square foot, 
two-story metrology laboratory addition to USATSG Headquarters and 
Army Primary Standards Laboratory (colocated in building 5435 at Redstone 
Arsenal) was completed 19 April 1985. With the growth of the TMDE 
calibration and repair program worldwide due to the increasing 
numbers of high-technology equipment, need for additional laboratory 
space was recognized in the mid-1970's. A Military Construction, 
Array (MCA) project was formulated to meet those needs. After several 
years of defending the project at AMC and HQ DA levels, the project 
was approved for construction by Congress in 1983. A contract was 
let and construction began In February 1984. The new facility 
contained such special features as laboratory space for FAR-infrared 
lasers, millimeter wave, elctro-optics, radiometry, environmental and 
reliability testing, prototype development, and dynamic evaluation 
laboratories as well as space for the Systems Engineering Division and 
Systems Analysis Office. 

(U) Another MCA project drew to completion in FY85 as five TMDE 
calibration and repair support facilities were brought into service. 
Three of the facilities, completed in March, were at Camps Casey, 



294 



Coiner, and Sears in Korea for the 74th Maintenance Battalion (TMDE). 
The remaining two were USATSAC facilities at Fort Benning, Georgia, 
and Fort Eustis, Virginia. The facilities, three running 3,200 square 
feet and two running 4,000, were designed to provide working space 
for TMDE calibration and repair at the AN/GSM-286 and AN/GSM-287 
level. 

(U) Design was completed on MCA projects for Fort Bragg and 
Fort Ord. These projects were Unspecified Minor MCA (UMMCA) 
projects, and due to shortfall of UMMCA funds, were deferred. The 
Fort Bragg project was reclassified to a regular Minor MCA (MMCA) 
project for the FY86 military construction budget submission and was 
expected to be approved by Congress in the 1st quarter of FY86. 

(U) In addition, construction, alterations, and renovations 
were completed on numerous TMDE facilities using 0MA funds. Some of 
these were continuations of required improvements,' some were due to 
relocation, and some to assimilation of the former AMC internal 
calibration and repair facilities by USATSG in FY84/85. In CONUS, 
this included alterations at Fort Dix, New Jersey, Fort Riley, 
Kansas, and Fort Carson, Colorado. OCONUS, five sites in Germany had 
work completed on them during the fiscal year. 

(U) TMDE Calibration and Repair Facilities Minor Renovation and 
Alteration Projects . In addition to the projects discussed above, 
minor renovation projects were accomplished at the following 
locations: Aberdeen Proving Ground, Fort Belvoir, Fort Gillem, Fort 
Lewis, Long Beach, Ludwigsburg, Panama, Pueblo, Sacaramento, Tooele, 
Watervliet, Redstone, and Letterkenny. 

(U) The leased Bennett Facility alterations and renovations 
were completed by the owner in July 1985. This facility was the Area 
Calibration and Repair Center of the 524th Maintenance Company in 
Pirmasens, Germany. Installation of an Environmental Enclosure 
Laboratory System for the Area Calibration Laboratory was completed 
in August. The 524th moved all of its operations into the Bennett 
Facility that month with the exception of the headquarters, orderly 
room, billets, and motor pool. 

(U) Research and Development . The Metrology Directorate 
appointed an R&D coordinator to consolidate research and development 
projects. A detailed Army Metrology Research, Development, and 
Engineering Plan would be produced in FY86. Points of contact for 
metrology research were being developed with elements of LABC0M and 
Army R&D centers nationwide. Thirteen points of contact were 
identified by 30 September 1985. Metrology R&D was identified in the 
1986 budget as D594, a "new start" of $1,824 million. 



295 



(U) Gas Mask TMDE Support . In FY85 the Physical Standards and 
Development Laboratory was involved in supporting AMCCOM by 
calibrating the glass capillaries used by Pine Bluff Arsenal and 
Depot personnel. This supports the M4A1 Gas Mask Outlet Valve Tester 
used by AMCCOM personnel to periodically test all US Army gas masks. 
Several calibration systems were set up to accomplish this task. The 
systems were accurate to a 1 percent margin. One of the Systems was 
automated. Upwards of 200-300 capillaries were calibrated, serial 
numbered, and accepted or rejected. Before this work, AMCCOM lacked 
an organized logical system to do this job. An engineering task 
group was led by USATSG personnel on a project to develop a 
calibration procedure for the M14 Gas Mask Leakage Tester during 
1985. A report was completed in May 1985 on the work of this task 
group at Pine Bluff Arsenal. Several significant problems were 
uncovered on this expedition. 

(U) Laboratory Projects . During FY85 a number of improvements 
were made to laboratory capabilities. The volatile fluid flow 
capability was expanded from 75 to 250 gallons per minute. 
Installation of a calibration fluid pumping system for the new 
standard was in progress at the end of the year. The system was 
expected to be operational by mid-86. Facilities modification was 
completed for accommodation of a new manometer system which 
increased the laboratory capability from 62 to 108 inches of 
mercury. Completion of the manometer project was expected by the end 
of CY85. Reference laboratories received capability of calibrating 
the Bacharach MV-2 Mercury Vapor Sniffer. Finally, the start-up of 
the capillary calibration effort, a major new workload area, required 
new calibration techniques and the establishment of procedures for 
unit identification, test criteria, and test report records, and 
brought associated administrative problems. 

(U) Torque Measurement . The metrology directorate made a visit 
to White Sands Missile Range to study a balanced loading system 
considered crucial in the Army Primary Standards Laboratory's 
decision to select a hybrid system capable of using deadweight 
assists at lower torque but not at higher torque values where a 
balanced loading system would take over. Such a system was currently 
in procurement. This approach was expected to overcome the problem 
associated with deadweight systems as torque values approach 20,000 
lb-ft, namely, intolerable bearing loads, prohibitive expense, and 
cumbersome operation. 

Logistics Directorate (U) 

(U) Equipment Management . The USATSG received a satisfactory 
rating in the AMC Command Equipment and Supply Management Review 
(CESMR) conducted 5-9 November 1984. The review was a 



296 



follow-up/reinspection in the two areas that received unsatisfactory 
ratings during the December 1983 CESMR: authorization/reconciliation 
and mission supply support account operation. New procedures and 
proposed schedules were developed for conducting CESMR' s within 
USATSG. A CESMR was conducted in the 74th Maintenance Battalion 30 
September - 18 October 1985. Efforts were ongoing to automate the 
equipment redistribution, utilization, and authorization functions 
within the branch. Hardware was received and programs were in 
development. The Equipment management Branch began the process of 
converting W1PLLAA property record to the new AMC mandated 
installation equipment management system (IEMS) in September 1985 and 
simultaneously implemented the bar code inventory (BARCIS). This 
effort was expected to take a year to complete. 

(U) Foreign Military Sales . Price, availability and 
serviceability (PAS) data were developed for 18 FMS cases, while case 
coordination and management were performed on a day-by-day basis on 43 
active FMS cases. An equipment list for six major procurement 
actions was received for compliance with the AMC "total package" 
approach in support of weapons systems. In July 1985, Royal Jordanian 
Army representatives attended an In-Process Review conducted by US 
Army TMDE Support Group. In August 1985, Arab Republic of Egypt 
(ARE) representatives attended a 10-day orientation in TMDE 
management conducted by USATSG. In October 1985, Ridge Instruments, 
Inc. delivered the Transfer Calibration Set for FMS case Egypt EK. 
Four Program Management Review (PMR) conferences were attended by 
Security Assistance personnel: Jordan PMRs at St. Louis, Missouri 
and Redstone Arsenal, Taiwan PMR at Washington, D.C., and 
Jordan/Saudi Arabia PMR in the respective countries. During November 
and December 1984, the chief of the Security Assistance Division 
conducted a management review and liaison visit to Jordan and Saudi 
Arabia. Calibration assistance teams were sent by the USATSG to 
provide calibration support and technical assistance to Jordan (two 
teams), Morocco, Saudi Arabia (six teams), and Thailand (two teams). 
In addition a two-man survey team spent 40 days in Jordan supporting 
equipment and explaining staffing requirements. Also Taiwan was 
assisted by a representative who attended the PMR and coordinated the 
Environmental Enclosure delivery for that country. 

(U) Publications . USATSG prepared and distributed concurrently 
with the deployment of materiel some 160 new or revised calibration 
procedures to support both calibration standards and TMDE. Some 
1,400 calibration procedures were being maintained. Responses to 
over 500 DA Forms 2028, Recommended Changes to Publications, were 
completed within 15 days to support calibration technicians. In 
addition, to support force modernization TMDE for systems such as 
Pershing II, Black Hawk, Ml tank, and Bradley, the TEMOD program was 
supported with calibration procedures concurrent with deployment of 



297 



each Item. During the same time, innovations reduced the 
number of calibration procedures required. With obvious savings in 
maintenance, preparation time, printing, storage, distribution, and 
recording, calibration procedures for generic groups of TMDE were 
combined so that four new calibration procedures would replace 46 
existing procedures. 

(U) AMC subordinate commands were surveyed by USATSG to purge 
automotive test equipment and replace it with simplified test 
equipment for internal combustion engines. They were also surveyed 
so that calibration intervals for highly reliable test equipment 
could be extended, perhaps to the point of eliminating the 
requirement. USATSG was thus Instrumental in having AMCCOM purge 
obsolete automotive test equipment by deleting the equipment from 
their supply catalogs and having them turn in the equipment; 
calibration intervals for 44 items were extended and the requirement 
to calibrate 222 items was eliminated. These were matters of 
interest to Congress and GAO and were expedited to the field by 
USATSG correspondence and TB 43-180, Calibration and Repair 
Requirements for the Maintenance of Army Materiel. 

(U) Fielding for the Pershing II system proved that state-of-the-art 
TMDE must be supported with state-of-the-art calibration procedures. 
The fielding resulted in USATSG absorbing the new mission of 
preparing automated calibration procedures. Six procedures were 
prepared and distributed to the calibration facilities which 
supported the Pershing II system. USATSG initiated efforts to 
establish an automated calibration procedures preparation facility. 
The facility would develop automated calibration procedures for TMDE 
similar to the Pershing II test equipment, which had to be calibrated 
through the IEEE bus and programmable circuits, as well as procedures 
for the new automated calibration standards being developed into 
workstations during the 1986-1990 timeframe. This new mission 
required additional training, manpower, and equipment. 

(U) New Equipment Training . The New Equipment and Technology 
Training Division conducted eight calibration standards refresher 
course classes, graduating 44 students, personnel assigned to USATSAC 
and the 95th Maintenance Company. The Hewlett Packard 331A 
Synthesizer/Function Generator was added to the course, which also 
Included classes on integrated circuits, microprocessors, and the 
7613 Oscilloscope System. Instructor and key personnel training was 
conducted for the AN/USM-489 Spectrum Analyzer, the HP 335A 
Synthesizer/Level Generator, and the Tactical Army Combat Service 
Support Computer System as well. 



298 



US Army TMDE Support Actlvity-CONUS (U) 

(U) Internal Calibration Laboratories . USATSG central 
managerial control over all AMC internal calibration facilities (ICF) 
came about in FY85 through implementation by the US Army TMDE Support 
Activity-CONUS (USATSAC) . The plan was approved by HQ AMC in FY84 
and required command and control of 27 missions by 1 October 1985, 
proceeding first with DESCOM missions by 1 October 1984, all TECOM 
missions by 1 June 1985, and the remainder the following October. The 
TECOM missions were actually assumed 1 January 1985 and the rest by 1 
June 1985, four months ahead of schedule. 

(U) Support Consolidations . Prior to 30 September 1985, DESCOM 
had operated an ICF at Sierra Depot, Herlong, California. This 
facility was abolished on 1 October 1985. With transfer of the SEAD 
ICF to USATSG on 1 October 1984, plans were developed to discontinue 
the use of a mobile TMDE support team (MTST) from Sacramento ACRC for 
support of the Salt Lake City area workload; instead, an MTST from 
the TMDE Support Center (TSC)-Tooele. This realignment also 
eliminated the Tooele support of Umatilla Army Depot Activity (UMAD) , 
Hermiston, Oregon. UMAD support came thereafter from the Fort Lewis 
MTST. One of the two calibration facilities operating at White Sands 
Missile Rang (WSMR) was transferred to avoid duplication. Action was 
initiated to phase out WSMR mobile support through the MTST from TMDE 
Support Operation (TSO)-Fort Bliss, eliminating costly duplication of 
mobile TMDE support team stops. When the Army Materiel Mechanics 
Research Center (AMMRC) and Natick Research and Development Center 
TMDE support Missions transferred to USATSG, USATSAC determined that 
the two missions could be effectively accomplished by consolidating 
both at AMMRC where a larger, more fully-equipped laboratory was 
capable of providing effective and more cost efficient support. With 
the establishment of an Interservice Support Agreement (ISA) with the 
Marine Corps Depot at Barstow, California, USATSG eliminated the MTST 
operating from the Long Beach TSO to support Fort Irwin. 

(U) Personnel . Transfer of the 27 ICFs increased USATSAC 's work 
force authorization from 730 spaces, which included 572 permanent 
civilians, 40 overhire civilians, and 118 military in FY84, to a 
total of 1,028 authorized spaces at the end of FY85. The FY85 
authorization included 827 permanent civilian spaces, 54 overhire 
civilians, and 147 authorized military. 



299 





MISSION 




TRANSFERRED 


DESCOM 


1 Oct 84 


TACOM 


1 Jan 85 


TECOM 


1 Jan 85 


AMMRC 


1 Apr 85 


Natick 


1 Apr 85 


ERADCOM 


1 May 85 


AMCCOM 


1 May 85 


Vint Hill 


1 Jun 85 


Source: 


Executive Directo 



Personnel Transfers to USATSAC (U) 



SPACES TRANSFERRED 

CIV MIL 

195 

10 

61 10 

4 2 

2 2 

36 3 

36 8 

1 5 



(U) The USATSAC continued to experience recruiting difficulties 
at the GS-09 level during FY85. Long waiting periods of up to six 
months for an OPM listing were reported as common occurrences. In 
some cases the list, when finally received, contained only one or two 
names and usually these personnel were no longer available for 
employment. The loss of highly qualified technicians to higher 
graded jobs on the installation and to the higher paying commercial 
sector compounded the recruitment problems. The assignment of 
military technicians to USATSAC elements and the prudent use of 
overtime were significant factors in preventing deterioration of the 
mission performance. A total of 147 military personnel were on board 
against an authorization of 147 at the end of FY85. 

(U) Financial Management . The USATSAC program budget guidance 
(PBG) for FY85 was $37.9 million. Obligations against the PBG ran to 
96 percent. Some contributing factors to the less than 100 percent 
obligation were the large number of vacancies, the AMC hiring freeze 
imposed in August 1985, and lengthy recruiting time. The FY85 PBG 
reflected a 50 percent increase over FY84. This was due to transfer 
of the internal calibration mission to USATSG from the AMC MSCs. 
Dollars involved in this transfer were approximately $7.1 million 
from DESCOM, $458,500 from ERADCOM, $606,500 from AMCCOM, $350,000 
from TACOM, $3.1 million from TECOM, and $68,600 from remaining 
commands, for a total of $11.7 million. 



300 



Utilized 

Direct Army 
National Guard 
Army Reserve 
Other Customers 



USATSAC Budget, End of FY85 
(in millions of dollars) 
Program/Budget 
Guidance (PBG) Obligations 



$17.0 

4.3 

1.4 

15.2 



17.0 
3.5 
1.4 

14.4 



Percent 



100 
81 

100 
95 



TOTAL $37.9 36.3 96 

Source: Executive Director TMDE, FY85 AHR submission 

(U) Production . By the end of FY85, the number of items 
supported by USATSAC had increased from 279,809 to 316,428, a 13 
percent gain which was due to the transfer of the ICF missions. A 
total of 578,319 calibration and repair actions were reported by all 
elements of USATSAC during this period, including the 27 new ICF 
missions. USATSAC as a whole maintained an availability rate above 
97 percent throughout FY85 despite adjustment in workload and 
mission transfers. The availability rate at the end of FY84 was 97.6 
percent while the rate at the end of FY85 was 97.4, percent with only 
slight fluctuation during the year. 

(U) Quality . Surity FY85 USATSAC elements participated in a 
total of 42 quality audits. Agreement was found in 33 of the audits 
conducted. Two "no agreements" were found but have since been 
reaudited and found to be in agreement. Seven audits were still in 
progress at the end of the year. In FY85, USATSAC elements were 
inspected by USATSG quality Assurance teams. A total of three 
unsatisfactory ratings resulted. These were later reinspected and 
found to be satisfactory. Two reinspections of unsatisfactory 
ratings found in FY84 were also conducted and found to be 
satisfactory. 

(U) Facility Improvements . A total of $742,950 was spent in 
FY85 to construct new laboratory facilities at Forts Benning and 
Eustis. An additional $286,000 was spent on building modifications 
at Forts Dix, Riley, Sill and Pine Bluff. These improvements are 
reflected in the discussion of facility upgrades within the USATSG 
discussed within the Metrology Directorate section. 

(U) Au t oma t i on Impr o vemen t s . As the result of the assumption of 
AMC ICF missions at USATSAC, DESC0M ICFs ' calibration recall files 
were transferred to the US Army Missile Command (MICOM) computer and 
began reporting to the TMDE Recall and Control System (TRACS) in the 



301 



first quarter FY85. Seven CPT word processing systems having 
intercommunications capabilities with the USATSAC Redstone Arsenal 
system were fielded. Eleven Courier terminals were fielded during 
FY85 for accessing the MICOM mainframe computer. To alleviate TDY 
shortages for remote field activities, one Courier terminal was 
located at Lexington ACRC and two terminals were placed at Fort 
Huachuca TSC. Two additional Courier terminals were added to the 
headquarters support operation allowing direct inquiry and update of 
financial and procurement requisition data bases. A Digital 
Equipment Corporation Rainbow 100 with letter quality printer was 
obtained for use in automating USATSAC support functions. 

(U) Chemical Agent Alarms and Monitors . During FY85, extensive 
work was done to establish capability to support chemical agent 
alarms and monitors (M43A1 and CAM) . This effort was nearly complete 
and preparations were underway to gear up for similar requirements 
for future alarms for other Army equipment being fielded with 
radioactive sources. 

(U) Area Ionization Radiation Dosimetry Center . The measurement 
technique conversion of the US Army dosimetry program from 
photodosimetry using film to thermoluminescent dosimetry (TLD) was 
underway at the Area Ionization Radiation Dosimetry Center (AIRDC) 
located at Lexington-Bluegrass Army Depot (LBAD). An element of the 
Eastern Operations Division (EOD), USATSAC, the AIRDC accepted the 
Panasonic-supplied instrumentation system on 10 June 1985. The 
conversion, when completed in FY88, was to provide dosimetry program 
customers with a reusable badge capable of monitoring a more complete 
assortment of radiation types experienced in Army work activities. 
Also, since the evaluation process for the badge is automated, 
manpower resources at the AIRDC could be stabilized and used in 
the center's other missions, such as wipe test analysis and special 
radiation monitoring device fabrication. 

95th Maintenance Company (U) 

(U) FY85 also brought a broadening of the scope of mission to 
the 95th Maintenance Company (TMDE). It exercised its worldwide 
contingency mission by deploying Base TMDE Support Team 22 to Mainz 
Army Depot. The unit also saw an update of equipment through TEMOD 
fielding. The fielding of microcomputers to 10 detachments 
throughout CONUS promised to improve the support provided customers. 
The Area TMDE Support Teams (ATST) of the 95th, which provided 
dedicated and deployable support to the ten FORSCOM divisions, were 
renumbered to reflect each division's numerical designator. This was 
done to enhance rapport with the divisions and reduce confusion among 
personnel who did not deal with the ATSTs on a daily basis. A common 
task field training exercise (FTX) was accomplished by 95th 



302 



Maintenance Headquarters during March 1984. The objective was to 
implement and evaluate common task training in a field environment. 
This FTX brought this aspect of training up to standard and 
significantly improved unit readiness. On 24 May 1985, the company 
underwent a change of command. The incoming commander, CPT Barbaras 
L. Pagano, came to the unit from the Ordnance Officer Advanced 
Course. The outgoing commander, CPT Harry S. Hamilton, departed to 
his next assignment at the ROTC Detachment at Weber State College, 
Ogden, Utah. The unit chaired the Warrant Officer MOS 252A Task Site 
Selection Board at Fort Gordon on 23-27 July 1985. This was the 
first time that such a board was convened for the MOS. 

Program Manager for Test, Measurement and Diagnostic Equipment (U) 

Organization (U) 

(U) Personnel . COL Douglas H. Harclay continued as the Program 
Manager for Test, Measurement, and Diagnostic Equipment (PN, TMDE). 
The Product Manager, TEMOD, LTC Robert C. White, retired in July 
1985 and the Deputy Product Manager, Richard Pribyl, was designated 
Acting Product Manager in the interim. In September, LTC Bruce D. 
Sweeney was named PM, TEMOD and assumed his duties at that time. The 
charter for the Product Manager, Test Program Sets (PM, TPS) was 
approved first quarter, FY85. LTC Steven Butcher was designated 
PM. 

(U) PM, TMDE personnel strength was below authorized levels for 
civilian workers throughout the year, with 106 workers at the 
beginning and the end of the year against 141 authorized slots. The 
military officers numbered 12 at the beginning of the year and 10 at 
the end, a decline corresponding to the decline from 16 to 14 
officer spaces. Both enlisted positions were filled on 1 October 
1984 and again at year's end. 

(U) Mission Changes . DRCTM-E Message, 172000Z Jan 84, subject: 
TPS Program Set (TPS) Management, formally directed the CECOM 
Commander and PM, TMDE to take the lead in managing the Army-wide TPS 
functions, which included establishing uniform TPS policies, 
developing TPS models and monitoring Army-wide TPS activities. 

(U) The PM, TMDE established a TPS Management Task Force under 
the direction and operational control of the Product Manager, 
Automatic Test Support Systems (PM, ATSS) by DRCPM-TMDE-P letter, 
dated 13 April 1984, subject: Test Program Sets (TPS) Management Task 
Force. The PM, TMDE also took action to establish a division level 
organization, under the PM, ATSS organization utilizing available PM 
resources within their approved TDA. 



303 



(U) Funding Profile. The FY85 funding profile was as follows 



(in $000) 


: 










Program 
Direct 




Obligations 


Carryover 


OMA 

RDTEA 

APA 


3,922 
14,488 
33,490 




3,022 
14,257 
31,284 




191 

2,206 




Program 
Reimburs 


able 


Obligations 


Carryover 


OMA 

RDTEA 

APA 



132 
249 





125 
249 








(U) In PA appropriation, programmed funds were increased by 
$3.2 million with no payback to complete multiyear procurement of 
GRM-114A, by $650 thousand which was to be paid back to complete 
multiyear procurement of AN/USM-488, and by $833 thousand which was 
an MSC action to fund high priority unfinanced requirement, TS-4084. 
In OMA appropriation, total POM effort increased $1.45 million, yet 
$200 thousand less was consumed by direct operating requirements, as 
a PA-reimbursed production and engineering function was established 
and 10 other positions were withdrawn from RDTE. However, other 
support requirements were initiated: Material fielding support of 
AN/MSM-105; purge planning to support the TEMOD program and logistics 
planning; additional technical documentation for AN/MSM-105 and TEMOD 
items; TEMOD systems engineering; a new mission for TPS 
Standards/Tools, as directed by CG, AMC. 



(U) In RDTE, fund release was not authorized until January for 
selected projects, and until August for projects which were subject 
to review by the Under Secretary of the Army prior to that 
congressional notification required by the FY85 D0D Authorization Act 
for their release. Prior to FY85 release, major RDTE elements of PM, 
TMDE were sustained by carryover funds which permitted continuation 
of priority programs in the areas of PIN Electronics and 
Electro-Optic testing advance development. Carryover funds also 
supported the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and IFN for 
initiation of Intermediate Forward Test Equipment (IFTE) . 



(U) FY85 programs included continuation of PIN Electronics and 
Electro-Optics, continuation and new requirements for STE-X FSED, 
initiation of Automated TPS System Environment, initiation of test 



136 For pIN electronics, see FY84 AHR. 



304 



support analysis model, acquisition of ADPE and ADPE network, funding 
of metrology and calibration initiation, and finally, on 19 September 
1985, award of a firm fixed price contract for IFIT FSED. In the area 
of customer programs, PM, TMDE began two efforts for Army Development 
and Employment Agency (ADEA) , TMDE upgrade and ATE, both of which 
were funded by ADEA. 

(U) Force Modernization . Among program accomplishments by PM, 
TMDE, was AN/MSM-105(V) , which was a designated Force Modernization 
system and which included the OQ-290/MSM and OA-8-8991/MSM, 
Test/Repair Facilities. The AN/MSM-105(v)l was a general purpose, 
transportable, field test and repair system for General Support (GS) 
level maintenance of selected electronic material. It provided 
diagnostic performance and fault isolation test capability for 
digital, analog and hybrid electronic line replaceable units (LRU) 
and printed circuit boards (PCB) . It also provided a precision 
electronics repair capability, i.e., replacement of piece parts, for 
selected LRUs and PCBs. As of October 1985, of the 35 procured 
systems three had been fielded in USAREUR, one had been fielded in 
Korea, and eleven had been fielded in CONUS. 

(U) Test Support Analysis Model . An effort had been pursued for 
the establishment of a management model to establish procedures and 
methodology for assessing and optimizing test equipment requirements 
and support plans. The Test Support Analysis Model (TSAM) , once 
developed and tested, would be utilized at both the individual weapon 
system and Army Force Structure levels. The model would define 
procedures and responsibilities for planning and managing TMDE 
requirements throughout a weapon systems life cycle. The impact on 
system design and support plans would be assessed by addressing 
tradeoffs in Built-in-Test, Testability, Levels of Repair (LOR), 
TMDE inventory and Force Structure requirements and associated risk. 
The TSAM areas of analysis were supported by a group of models 
addressing each of the decision areas. Optimization within and 
between decision areas was expected ultimately to produce a 
coordinated system/ Army test and support plans with acceptable 
operational, cost, land risk levels. 

(U) Intermediate Forward Test Equipment . The Intermediate 
Forward Test Equipment (IFTE) was Army's program of developing 
automatic test equipment (ATE) that would be reconf igurable to 
support weapon system commodities. The IFTE for tactical use was to 
consist of: a base shop test facility (BSTF) and a contact test set 
(CTS). The BSTF was to contain up to two BST stations (BSTS) in an 
S-280 shelter mounted on a 5-ton truck. It was being developed as a 
modular system of ATE which would support repair of LRUs through PCB 
screening and replacement. Variants were to be designed to support 
specific weapon systems or commodities. The BSTF would be capable of 



305 



expanding test capabilities to meet new test requirements with 
minimal new development. The CTS would be a man-portable unit 
employed by intermediate level maintenance contact support teams. It 
was to be used to identify failed LRUs by augmenting 
built-in-test/built-in-test equipment (BIT/BITE) in a system. The 
CTS was to be configurable to support specific systems through 
plug-in, pull-out modules. The BSTF was being designed to execute 
TPSs previously designed for the AN/MSM-105. 

(U) In addition to the BSTF and CTS, a non-tactical system 
called the Commercial Equivalent Equipment (CEE) was to be developed 
for use by weapon system developers. The CEE was the functional 
equivalent to the BSTS and would be used by contractors for TPS 
development and by depots in lieu of the BSTS. 

(U) The IFTE program was structured around a three-phase 
acquisition strategy that allowed maximum competition by industry 
in responding to the Government's program requirements. Phase I was 
a systems definition phase which was awarded in June 1983 to five 
contractors: Boeing, Emerson, General Dynamics, Grumman, and RCA. 
The contractors provided different systems concepts to meet the 
Government's requirements. The contract was a six-month firm fixed 
price (FFP) effort and was completed on 29 December 1983. The 
contractors delivered "A" level and draft "B" level specifications, 
design plans, system studies/trade-offs on such topics as system 
architecture, field survivability, integrated logistics support and 
TPS development, reliability, maintainability and logistics program 
plans. 

(U) Phase II, FSED, was awarded 18 September 1985 to the 
Grumman Aerospace Corporation for $6.9 million, following approval by 
the Under Secretary of the Army. The effort was limited to one 
contractor instead of two as previously planned. During FSED, the 
IFTE components would be designed, developed, fabricated and tested 
against contractor-developed Bl and B5 specifications. 

(U) Phase III, the initial production phase of the IFTE, was to 
be awarded to the FSED contractor to insure smooth transition from 
development and attainment of IOC as rapidly as possible. The 
initial production phase was to include procurement of IFTE system 
and validation of the technical data package (TDP) to allow maximum 
competition for future IFTE procurements. To further Insure a 
producible TDP, a study contract was to be awarded to a major ATE 
producer to review the TDP and the initial production contractor's 
production facilitation. A producibility report would be required 
for the Government prior to release of the competitive TDP. 



306 



(U) Electro-Optics Test Facility . As a subset of the IFTE 
program, the Electro-Optics Test Facility (EOTF) would be housed In a 
vehicle-mounted shelter. The EOTF was to be reconf igurable to 
provide fault isolation and diagnostic capability to the LRU level. 

(U) A Phase I cost-plus-fixed-fee concept definition contract 
was awarded to Prospective Computer Analysis, Inc. in July 1984. 
During FY85, draft specifications were received as contract 
deliverables. Program slippage occurred due to data collection, 
delay in approval of the IFTE program, and funding constraints. Final 
deliverables were received from the contractor in October 1985, and 
the Phase I contract was extended for an additional six months to 
further define system requirements. Upon completion of the concept 
definition effort, two courses would be available: should industry 
have proved the technology to develop an EOTF prototype, FSED could 
proceed; if not, an advanced development (AD) effort would be 
initiated. 

(U) Simplified Test Equipment - Expandable . The Simplified Test 
Equipment - Expandable (STE-X) was the organizational member of the 
Automated Test Support Systems (ATSS) family. STE-X was intended to 
provide the forward support combat vehicle mechanic with a simple and 
rapid means of diagnosing and assessing the condition of a combat 
vehicle In its "as is" condition. The application included automated 
test of vehicle power packs, hull systems, and turret systems. The 
STE-X was planned to be the single standard test set for on-line 
diagnostics of all current combat vehicles, including the Abrams tank 
and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. It would be readily expandable for 
application to future vehicle developments, as well. STE-X was 
being developed by TACOM under the direction of PM, ATSS. 

(U) In December 1984, the STE-X contract was renegotiated from 
a cost-plus-incentive-fee (CPIF) to a cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) 
contract based on a determination that that was in the best interest 
of the Government. A reduction of $44 thousand in fee dollars 
resulted from the change. 

(U) Two additional STE-X test sets were procured in July 1985 
from RCA in order to meet the Reliability, Availability, 
Maintainability (RAM) requirements for the second round of design 
tests and operational tests (DT/OT II), raising the number of test 
sets purchased to eight. 

(U) On 8 and 9 August 1985, a Test Integration Working Group 
(TIWG) was held prior to the start of DT/OT II. Numerous TRADOC 
concerns and problems were raised at the meeting which resulted in 
postponing the start of DT from 19 August to 9 October 1985. 
Problems included slippage of Engineering Design Test (EDT), impacting 



307 



availability of the test sets, and coordination between the 
contractor and TRADOC, delaying TRADOC training approval for 
key/instructor personnel. The OT was postponed from 19 August 1985 
to 6 February 1986 for a number of reasons: nonavailability of 
sufficient numbers of test personnel and scorers to conduct the OT as 
defined by the TRADOC proponent, reevaluation of the original STE-X 
OT requirements by TRADOC, RAM hours, confidence levels/factor, 
multi-shift testing, and critical MOSs for school, tactical, and 
test personnel. In addition, Organizational and Operational (0&0) 
concept approval had to be obtained. 

(U) Funding for contractual efforts was again a problem in the 
program. The STE-X funding line was tied into the IFTE program. Due 
to the funding uncertainty of the IFTE program, TACOM funded $2.99 
thousand of the contractual funds necessary to continue the STE-X 
program on schedule out of their MMT/MACI funds. As soon as IFTE 
funds were released, in August 1985, the funds were immediately 
reprogrammed from HQ AMC to TACOM. 

(U) The FY85 accomplishments included continued engineering 
design tests on test units, completed system software release 5, 
training for DT II, completed application software, completed initial 
delivery of the Support Material List, completed assembly of two 
additional STE-X core/main frames, and completed delivery of a 
preliminary TDP. 

(U) Simplified Test Equipment/Internal Combustion Engine - 
Reprogrammable . TACOM developed the Simplified Test Equipment for 
Internal Combustion Engine (STE/ICE) which performed all necessary 
test measurements in vehicle engines, electrical systems, and 
associated components/subsystems. Its test capabilities included 
conventional measurements such as engine RPM, pressure, vacuum, 
voltage, current, resistance, temperature, and a series of special 
dynamic tests to determine engine power, compression balance, and 
condition of the batteries and starter circuit. STE/ICE was fielded 
at the unit/organizational level, but was also fielded at 
intermediate direct support and general support as an interim tester. 

(U) The STE/ICE-R was a product improvement of the STE/ICE, PIP 
1-82-07-4000, instituted in FY82 by TACOM. An unfunded PIP was 
transferred to TMDE in FY84. The program gained funding and a 
contract was planned for FY86. A PIP verification test began at 
TECOM in September 1985. STE/ICE-R, like STE/ICE, performed all 
essential tests and measurements on internal combustion engine 
powered material (except missiles and aircraft). Future vehicle 
systems were to have on-board diagnostic connectors to which the 
STE/ICE-R could be attached. It differed from its ancestor in having 



308 



an additional 34K of Read Only Memory (ROM). STE/ICE-R could be 
reprogrammed externally due to its electronically erasable 
programmable ROM (E 2 PROM) chips. One STE/ICE-R could reprogram up 
to 10 other units in approximately 10 minutes. A production contract 
was planned to procure some 8,400 sets. 

(U) Under the PIP, the currently fielded STE/ICE sets would be 
modified to the STE/ICE-R configuration. To the user, the appearance 
of the units was the same. The addition of a new power supply would 
give STE/ICE-R the capability for future noncontact and microwave 
sensor diagnostic capability. 

(U) Test Equipment Modernization . The PM, TEMOD was responsible 
for the management and execution of the Army Test, Measurement and 
Diagnostic Equipment (TMDE) Modernization (TEMOD) program. The 
program sought to acquire and field up-to-date, state-of-the-art TMDE 
as replacements for TMDE that was costly to maintain, obsolete, or 
cluttered with multiple versions of the same generic types. Upon its 
inception, PM, TEMOD was confronted with an Army inventory of some 
2,500 makes and models of existing general purpose TMDE. The goal of 
TEMOD was to reduce the number of general purpose TMDE to 
approximately 65. Accomplishment of that goal was calculated to 
achieve such benefits as reducing of TMDE density, control of TMDE 
proliferation, promotion of TMDE standardization, improvement of 
Army materiel readiness through increased availability and 
production, and reduction of the TMDE logistical burden. 

(U) PM, TMDE used a multi-year procurement approach to acquire 
the total authorized acquisition objective for the Army as a one-time 
buy, an approach calculated to assure the Army of significant cost 
savings. As of FY85, the TEMOD program had purchased 19 makes and 
models of general purpose TMDE with a total cost of approximately 
$100 million, saving the Government $35 million, or 26 percent. Five 
items were fielded, replacing 300 makes and models. 

(U) In February 1985, one fixed price, multi-year test 
equipment production contract was competitively awarded to Tektronix, 
Inc. The 1000 TS-4084 distortion analyzers obtained would replace a 
dozen different makes and models being fielded in 1985. 

(U) A N/MSM-105(v)l Test and Repair Facility, Electronic 
Equipment . Eight AN/MSM-105 (V) Is were fielded in FY85. The first 
of these test and repair facilities was fielded to the 647th Light 
Equipment Maintenance (LEM) Company at Fort Hood, Texas, in October 
1984. The second fielding occurred in November 1984 at the DIO 
Maintenance C&E Shop at Fort Stewart, Georgia. It was also fielded 
successfully to the Pirmasens COMMEL Maintenance Center in Germany in 
December 1984. Another fielding was completed in February 1985 to 



309 



the 556th Maintenance Company at Fort Riley, Kansas. Another 
fielding of the advanced test and repair facility was completed in 
March 1985 with the 347th Transportation Company, Fort Shafter, 
Hawaii. Three additional CONUS fieldings were achieved during the 
fiscal year with the fielding to the TRADOC School at Fort Devins, 
Maine, in April, the 584th Maintenance Company, Fort Campbell, 
Kentucky, in July, and the 73rd Maintenance Company, Fort Carson, 
Colorado, in September 1985. 

(U) Staging of the the major end items for the AN/MSM-105(V)1 
occurred at Tobyhanna Army Depot, Pennsylvania. This included the 
OQ-290, Test Facility; the OA-8991, Repair Facility, the 5-ton 
tractor, the 3/4-ton trailer and the 5/4-ton truck. 

(U) PM, ATSS requisitioned all Essential Repair Parts Stockage 
List (ERPSL) items using a modified push method which required 
coordination with the requisitioning units for the appropriate fund 
cites and requisition document numbers. The AN/MSM-105(V)1 was not 
designated an AMC TP/UMF weapon system, but PM, ATSS was planning 
transition of it into a TP/UMF by first quarter, FY88. 

(U) A N/MSM-410(v) - Electronic Equipment Test Station . A 
contract was awarded to RCA to procure ten AN/USM-410s for $9.4 
million with customer funds on 27 March 1985. The customer, Sergeant 
York Division Air Defense, terminated on 28 August 1985, and the test 
unit procurement was terminated for the convenience of the Government 
in October 1985. The total buyout was 146 systems. The assets were 
to be transferred to PM, ATSS, going into storage for redistribution 
on an as required basis. 

(U) Army Test, Measurement, and Diagnostic Technology Office . 
ATTO — the Army Test, Measurement, and Diagnostic Technology 
Office — initiated efforts in several areas. It instituted a 
methodology to reduce ATE size, cost and complexity with developing 
new technologies to produce ATE capable of testing the equipment 
systems of the 1990s and beyond. It established methodology to 
ensure cost effective detection/isolation of system failure 
throughout its life cycle. It explored concepts and methodology to 
test Army weapon systems through advanced communication techniques, 
such as spread spectrum and frequency hopping, millimeter wave, very 
high speed integrated circuits, fiber-optics, and electro-optics 
technologies. In addition, at the direction of the CG, AMC, the ATTO 
was establishing a BIT/BITE Center of Excellence for the entire Army 
community. The technology base program being pursued by the center 
was aimed at providing solutions to the Army's maintenance, repair, 
diagnostic, and prognostic deficiencies in the field. 



310 



(U) As part of an effort to manage a standard ATE language, 
ATTO was in the process of developing the Army TPS Support 
Environment (ATSE). A contract for the design and development of 
ATSE was awarded to the Grumman Aerospace Corporation, Melville, New 
York, on 27 June 1985. ATSE would provide all Army programmers with 
a common operating system environment interacting with ADA, the Army 
standard computer language, and a common set of software tools and 
aids. With ATSE, TPS developers would be relieved of the 
disadvantages of using many different test programmers, with varied 
skill levels and experience, which led to errors and use of 
non-standard test languages as well as swelling TPS costs. The 
contract called for a 48-month effort. The ATSE contract was 
cost-plus-award-fee (CPAF), unusual for Fort Monmouth and considered 
to have precedent-setting implications. A post-award conference was 
held at Grumman on 15-16 November 1985. 

(U) At the end of FY85, ATTO was pursuing establishment of a 
program for exploring areas of concern in prognostics, soft fault 
tracking, and selection of BIT/BITE parameters. The effort (6.3 
funds) aimed at meeting a recognized need for technology base efforts 
in the TMDE arena not being satisfied by industry or academia. On 4 
September 1985, PM, TMDE briefed a representative of the Office of 
the Army Director of Research and Technology on the 6.2 RDT&E 
technology base program for ATTO. 

(U) 9th Infantry Division . A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 
to support the 9th Infantry Division (9ID) High Technology Motorized 
Division (HTMD) was developed in FY83 by the AMC-MSA and the AMC TMDE 
Management Office, formalizing a systemic approach by materiel 
developers, combat developers, and users to improve the modernization 
of TMDE in the HTMD. The TMDE program (subsequently designated High 
Technology Light Division) was designed to identify and provide the 
optimum mix of state-of-the-art, general purpose, manual, and 
automatic test equipment required to support the 9ID (MTZ) during the 
transition and post-FY86 periods. The TMDE community was 
instrumental in supporting the 9ID transition to a HTLD during FY85 
by providing expertise and assistance in technical, logistic, and 
planning, programming and budgeting areas. 

(U) For the TMDE program, a program management plan (PMP) was 
developed to integrate the manual and Automatic Test Equipment (ATE) 
into a time-phased systems approach. This changed the traditional 
Army practice of fielding TMDE to support a system to a process of 
developing test envelopes and parameters which support units are 
required to measure. A review of the PMP was scheduled 
for first quarter FY86, with a projected completion date of the third 
quarter of that year. In this manner, a family of small, 
lightweight, general purpose manual and ATE required to support the 



311 



9ID (MTZ) would be identified. An iteration process would be employed 
to provide horizontal and vertical standardization of commodities and 
units. The reduction of TMDE quantities and types achieved would 
also reduce the numbers of associated MOSs required. Continuing 
projects of TMDE upgrade and ATE upgrade were planned, the result 
being an increased capability to support the high technology forces 
with less equipment and manpower. ADEA would assess the benefits and 
utility of the resultant TMDE systems in written reports. ODCSLOG 
directed that the 9ID (MTZ) TMDE modernization process, developed by 
ADEA, be institutionalized for Army-wide benefit. 

(U) The existing Army program addressed mainly the TMDE issues 
behind the division rear boundary with emphasis on organizational and 
DS unit capabilities. Efforts being conducted during FY85 in these 
units included evaluation of AN/USM-465A and OQ-319/U, upgrade and 
modernization of TMDE, bench top analyses and ISOPOD/transit case 
application. Of a three-phased test of AN/USM-465A and OQ-319/U to 
evaluate the use of such equipment at DS level, the first two phases 
were completed — training evaluation and pilot test. The third phase, 
field testing, was scheduled for completion 8 November 1985. 

(U) The TMDE upgrade, under PM, TEMOD, was a task of 
identifying inadequate or obsolete TMDE within sets, kits, and 
outfits in selected 9ID (MTZ) units and replacing those items with 
TMDE modernization items (using the bench top analysis (BTA) method). 
The TMDE modernization items would be evaluated by the following 9ID 
(MTZ) using units: 9th Signal Battalion (Bn), 4th Aviation Support 
Bn, 5th Maintenance Support Bn, 3d Forward Support Bn, 109th Military 
Intelligence (MI) Bn, and 542d (I Corps). The results of the 
appraisals were planned for use in arriving at the optimum 
configuration of TMDE within the division. The data would also 
provide insights into Army-wide applicability. 

(U) TEMOD 's effort involved performing BTA within each of the 
using battalions to analyze the maintenance requirements as the direct 
support level (DS) of systems supported by the maintenance activity 
of direct support unit specified. Once the maintenance requirements 
were identified, resulting data could be evaluated to determine the 
actual TMDE requirement. After determining the TMDE requirements, 
other factors Involving the specific mission requirements of the 
maintenance activity of DSU being evaluated were considered in order 
to develop a recommended TMDE profile, (that is, a list of TMDE makes 
and models with recommended densities). 

(U) Results of the BTAs conducted in FY85 were as follows: 



312 



TMDE Authorized 



9th Signal Bn 


Design TOE 


TMDE Recomme 


nded Percent 


Reduction 








Quantities 


101 


67 


34 


Makes/Models 


34 


16 


53 


Volume (ft 3 ) 


105 


46 


56 


Weight (lbs) 


2,063 


945 


54 


4th Support BN 








(Aviation) 


134 


85 




Quantities 


37 


Makes/Models 


26 


19 


27 


Volume (ft 3 ) 


101 


64 


37 


Weight (lbs) 


2,307 


1,496 


35 


2d/3d Forward 








Support 








Quantities 


49 


33 


33 


Makes/Models 


19 


11 


47 


Volume (ft 3 ) 


35 


29 


17 


Weight (lbs) 


925 


597 


35 



(U) In addition, there was an on-going transit case application 
effort. Cases of various sizes and constructions were brought to 
protect various pieces of TMDE and were to be rotated at several 
battalions for their use. The battalions were given responsibility 
for appraising the cases. The results would then be evaluated for 
possible future procurement for Army-wide use. 

(U) A special sample data collection (SDC) effort began in FY85 
for TMDE modernization in the 9ID (MTZ). The objective was to obtain 
data to analyze payoffs for the Army division In terms of reduced 
logistics requirements of TMDE. The SDC was being conducted in the 
1st and 2d Forward Support Battalions (FSB) with the DISC0M Group of 
9ID. The 1st FSB was designated as the "control" FSB and would 
retain their TMDE for an SDC program lasting from June 1985 to 
June 1986. The 2d FSB was designated "upgraded FSB" and would make 
equipment changes to the MTOE, the SDC to occur for a 
one-year period beginning in the second quarter of FY86. Selected 
equipment would be modernized and would replace older TMDE. Although 
some TMDE would remain the same in both FSB's, the value of this 
equipment to the mission of the division would also be evaluated. 
The "control" FSB would collect SDC for all assigned TMDE on the 
current MTOE. The "upgraded" FSB would collect data on the selected 



313 



TMDE and the TMDE that was not replaced by upgraded TMDE. Replaced TMDE 
would be purged from shop operation, and would not be accessible by 
shop repairmen. 

(U) Test Program Sets (TPS) Policy and Procedures . The Army 
Test Program Set (TPS) Policy and Procedures Manual had been 
developed and issued by the Product Manger for Test Program Sets, 
Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. The overview of these procedures was 
initially released for comments to organizations within AMC, as 
well as to interested industry observers. In FY86 a toll free number 
was to be established to provide a point of contact for each element 
of the manual and general TPS concerns. A telephone number for 
access to a TPS Information System (TPSIS) would also be made 
available. The TPSIS would provide a bulletin board, an automated 
means for collecting, storing, and disseminating comprehensive data 
to commands as well as reporting TPS discrepancies. 

(U) In addition, an education program to assist interested 
individuals having a need to know about the TPS Policy and 
Procedures Manual and TPS management would be available. The 
education program would provide a two-day program of instruction. The 
first day of instruction was planned for TPS awareness. The second 
would be available for management fundamentals. The PM Office was 
also evaluating Joint Logistics Commanders (JLC) courses for possible 
funding support. 



314 



CHAPTER VI 

US ARMY SECURITY ASSISTANCE CENTER (U) 

Introduction (U) 

(U) The US Army Security Assistance Center (USASAC) pursued a 
mission of supporting US foreign policy as Executive Agent for 
management of Army Security Assistance (SA) programs, providing 
friendly countries and allies an increased capacity to defend 
themselves . 

(U) During FY85 , USASAC accomplished its mission with a 
workforce of 610 civilian and 17 military personnel. As a major 
subordinate command of AMC, USASAC managed a $26.7 billion program 
with 6,323 Foreign Military Sales (FMS) cases. 

(U) The DOD, having responsibility for establishing military 
requirements and for implementing programs of defense materiel, 
services, and training, operated through the Defense Security 
Assistance Agency in furnishing plans, policy, and program 
information to USASAC, which in turn was dependent on Army commodity 
commands, TRADOC , and others to prepare and implement specific 
programs or "cases." Overall control was given by statute to the 
Secretary of State. 

(U) The USASAC Commander, Major General E. C. O'Connor, 
reemphasized the commitment to quality support to SA customers and 
initiated actions to strengthen teamwork between USASAC and the rest 
of AMC, DOD and State Department security assistance personnel 
worldwide. The goal of providing improved customer service and 
responsiveness was further advanced through complete implementation 
of the Army Centralized Case Management System (ACCMS). Central Case 
Management totally integrated financial and logistical processes 
through designation of USASAC as the single point of contact within 
Army for managing FMS cases. Reorganization of the USASAC Comptrol- 
ler Directorate under the Resource Management structure further 
enhanced USASAC SA support capabilities. 



US Army Security Assistance Center (USASAC), FY85 AHR submission, 
10 Feb 87 supplement. 
USASAC PAM 12-1, p. 7. 
USASAC, FY85 AHR submission. 



315 



Central Case Manager (U ) 

(U) By supervising the International Logistics Directorates at 
AMC's MSCs, developing better audit capabilities, and dealing with 
other federal agencies and foreign governments and organizations, 
USASAC was fulfilling the role envisioned by the House Armed Services 
Committee (HASC) when it directed during FY83 appropriations hearings 
that the military Services gain a better handle on Foreign Military 
Sales (FMS), the mainstay of US security assistance, by developing a 
central case manager. 

(U) USASAC bad been working toward improved management systems 
and enhanced automation capacity before receiving the HASC directive 
on centralized case management (CCM). FY84 saw a merging of efforts 
bent toward satisfying not only the congressional critics but also 
those foreign states and organizations to which military sales might 
be made. Under the AMC Commander and Major General O'Connor, 
USASAC CG/Director, the effort was continued in FY85 to realize the 
Army Central Case Management System (ACCMS). 

(U) An improved FY85 performance in clearing up residual 
problems so that long-open cases might be closed was done less 
through improved policies and procedures than through "management 
attention and brute force" according to a January L986 briefing. 
This assessment probably undervalued the role played by improved 
information available to management. In April the improved 
information capacity enabled institution of the Intensive Management 
Report, which brought management attention to specific problem cases 
where managerial "brute force" might be applied. But the Center 
looked for further improvements in case closure performance through 
improved policies and procedures. This was not confined, of course, 
simply to case closings, but applied to case handling across the 
board, from pricing, to logistic assessment, to shipping, to 
accountability, to response time generally. 

(U) The campaign to establish itself as the CCM for Army led 
also to reorganization in August 1985 along broad geographical lines, 
giving extensive case handling authority to teams that would have a 



FY83 AHR, p. 283: USASAC, FY85 AHR submission; p. 1; Duane 
Murtomaki, PM SA , Interview, 2 Sep 86. 
' See generally, FY84 AHR, Chapter VII. 



AMC Commanders Conference, Winter, 1986. 

7 USASAC, FY85 AHR submission, p. 6. 

8 Ibid; See also Interview, MG E.C. O'Connor, CG USASAC, 13 Jun 86. 



316 



big picture of security assistance activities in their region and 
which would have an internal goal-oriented and morale-enhancing 
flexibility. 

(U) Reorganization on Wheel Concept . The added 
responsibilities undertaken with CCM pushed along reorganization 
within USASAC. In August 1985, staff elements were realigned to 
provide for three CCM directorates corresponding with the regional 
directorates under the Deputy for Plans and Management in Alexandria. 
The three CCM directorates were each composed of two divisions; a 
varying number of CCM Cells comprised each division. The key to the 
reorganization was the arrangement of all case management functions 
around the central case manager heading each cell: essentially, a 
wheel concept of management. Work was distributed to the cells by 
country following assessment of the workload each country entailed. 
Depending on the work volume, a cell would have more or fewer people 
assigned to it. 

(U) Advantages attributed to the system were that it was 
flexible in handling varying business workload; it built morale by 
permitting the team to see the whole FMS picture with respect to the 
country or countries it was handling; and cross-training of personnel 
was fostered as performance indices were of the team. As an 
additional consideration, it brought Army into compliance with the 
HASC directive to designate central case managers to manage all 
active FMS cases. 

(U) The wheel concept was being studied for implementation at 

USASAC Alexandria in FY85, and at the end of the year the Alexandria 

12 
organization was being restructured along similar lines. 

(U) Comptroller to Resource Manager . A reorganization of the 
financial management functions overseen by the USASAC Comptroller 
added responsibilities effective 1 July 1985 for force development 
and manpower management, thereafter to be integrated with the 
management of dollars. Organizationally, the comptroller was 
designated as Director for Resource Management and given deputies for 
financial operations and for resources and financial plans. The 
change also brought activities external to USASAC but impacting force 
management and financial policies/plans within the responsibility of 



10 
11 
12 



US Army Security Assistance Center, FY85 AHR submission, p. 9-10. 

Briefing, Winter Commanders Conference. 

Ibid. 

Briefing, Winter Commanders Conference, HQ AMC. 

Ibid. 



317 



the Resource Manager. Administrative officers in New Cumberland and 
Alexandria were to continue provision of administrative support, 
except in the force management area. 

(U) USASAC continued processing recommendations relating to 
recoupment of nonrecurring costs for major and non-major defense 
equipment (MDE and Non-MDE) during FY85 to ensure the recoupment 
rates ensured a profitless but complete recovery of a pro rata share 
of US development costs. Changes relating to the method of Non-MDE 
computation of charges, including a lowered equipment value threshold 
for recoupment, were instituted in FY85. Also in FY85 , USASAC backed 
an initiative to have the US Army Audit Agency review Army FMS 
pricing policies, procedures, systems, and manpower to ensure that 
prices reflected US costs accurately. 

(U) The Center operated on an FMS administrative fee budget of 
$100.2 million, collected as a percentage of the materiel it 
supplied, achieving a 99.9 percent obligation rate through yearend 
reprogramraing that saw all valid requirements funded and executed. 
The FY85 budget represented a better than 9 percent growth over the 
FY84 budget of $91.8 million. 15 

(U) Security Assistance Automation, Army . A central automated 
support for Amy's security assistance mission was in development in 
FY85 as the Security Assistance Automation, Army (SA ) system. Prior 
to SA , many local and unique automated systems kept track of the 
flow of data associated with the mission. The MSCs relied upon the 
CCSS [Commodity Command Standard System] for its logistics data, 
while the USASAC operations center in New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, 
developed the Centralized Integrated System International Logistics 
(CIS-IL) to handle information at the central case level. The 
systems could not communicate well with each other and lacked the 
ability to assemble data for examination at the country level or 
higher. Much of the data was maintained by hand. These and other 
shortcomings generated the SA program, which was given a HQDA PM 
charter in March 1983. 16 



13 
14 



15 
16 



Ibid. 

Equipment reviewed included the AN/USQ-70, Position and Azimuth 

Determining System; Ml/MIE Tank; M60 tank machine hull; M261 

multi-purpose sub-munition warhead for the Hydra 70 weapons system; 

Low Altitude Surveillance Radar (LASR) derivative of the AN/TPQ-36 

radar; M981 Fire Support Team Vehicle (FISTV) system, and high 

Mobility Multi-Purpose Vehicle (HMMPV). 

US Army Security Assistance Center, FY85 AHR submission, p. 10. 

USASAC, FY85 AHR submission, p. 1; See FY84 AHR for additional 

information. 



318 



(U) The objectives of the SA system were to provide integrated 
and synchronized data to functional users at all levels, to provide 
superior inquiry capabilities through expanded communication 
channels, and to provide executive level decision support data where 
and when it was needed. Additionally, within the office environment, 
automated data coupled with the emerging technologies of micro 
processors, electronic mail and other system tools would provide the 
major productivity enhancement. The system was being developed in 
phases. 

(U) In FY85, following better than a year of prototype 
operation, the Phase I capability was installed at the operations 
center and the MSCs. It represented the baseline component of what 
was being designed as a modular system, one that would facilitate 
future changes and enhancements and dovetail with remaining phases of 
the the system. It incorporated the major components of CCM at 
USASAC and the MSCs into standard compatible data bases, including 
such information as requisition, billing, procurement, supply, and 
delivery data by both case and line levels. It would also give 
current and synchronized management information with specially 
tailored inquiries. 

(U) The requisition level data file, MRHS (Materiel Requisition 
History File), expanded to the SA format on 29 June, giving country 
program managers and central case managers data needed for total case 
management. The expanded file provided a complete audit trail of 
supply status as well as new sectors for original requisition data, 
materiel release orders, back order validation, requisition modifica- 
tions, suspended transactions, availability/ transportation, and 
follow-ups on bills. 

(U) Phase II was in prototype processing at the Automated 
Logistics Management Systems Agency (ALMSA) in Rock Island, Illinois, 
with proliferation expected in early FY86 . With it, DD Form 1513, 
the Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA) , would be supported with 
standard logic permitting its automated preparation and transmittal 
to organizational elements for coordinated integration of all 
required data elements, including pricing and availability. 



17 
lb 
19 



US Army Security Assistance Center, FY85 AiiR submission, p. 1. 

Ibid. 

Ibid, p. 2. An indication of the future capability that 

working in a realtime access mode would have on preparation of LOAs 

came on 14 Mar 85, when USASAC conducted an exercise to determine 

the feasibility of developing an LOA within three working days in 

such an environment. 



319 



(U) Phase III was in programming in FY85 , to include a variety 
of capabilities, including standard reports of discrepancy (ROD) 
processes, major item data processes, supportability statements, and 
case closeout procedures. Follow-on phases being planned included 
data interchange with other automated systems, such as the DOD 
financial files at Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana, and the Security 
Assistance Accounting Center (SAAC) files in Denver. 

(U) The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) required 
direct participation by the Military Departments (MILDEPS) in 
developing interface requirements with SAAC. Nine concept papers 
describing specific interfaces were developed by the Interface Design 
Team and forwarded to the OSD for approval. OSD gave approval to the 
MILDEPS to proceed with the system design and development phase of 
the FMS Accounting and Billing System (FABS)/FMS Integrated Control 
System (FICS). Initial implementation was set for 1 October 1986. 

(U) Facsimile Network . In March 1985, USASAC established a 
dedicated facsimile network, the Security Assistance Dedicated 
Facsimile Network (SADFAN), to expedite information flow and 
accelerate case preparation time. The 29 machines employed were 
high-speed digital equipment able, however, to communicate with older 
three and six-minute machines. The 16 locations initially serviced 
were to be expanded to cover security assistance offices (SAO) in 29 
countries, additional Army activities in the continental United 
States, and other federal agencies with security assistance missions. 
During FY85, commercially available communications protection devices 
were being added to protect the sensitive information transmitted, 
while further enhancements were planned that would permit transmittal 
of classified information. SADFAN was used in communications with 

foreign customers and commercial enterprises as well as within the SA 

.22 
community. 

(U) Freight Forwarder Tracking System . The Center implemented 
a system for close tracking of materiel in transport from source of 
supply or repair to the country of destination or from the customer 
to the source of repair. The capability of the system, known as the 
Freight Forwarder Tracking System (FFTS), was intended for the 
benefit of the US Army case managers and those customers desiring it. 
Of 28 countries offered the system in FY85 , Singapore, Thailand, and 
Egypt gave positive responses, another five indicated high interest, 



20 Ibid. 

21 Ibid. 

22 Ibid. 



320 



23 
and only three gave firm rejections. Germany, the Saudi Arabian 

National Guard, and NATO Maintenance and Supply Activity already 

possessed such systems. The system became operational 7 August 1985, 

although problems with obtaining input were still being addressed. 

(U) LOR/LOA . The exercise conducted by USASAC to test the 
feasibility of expediting preparation of an LOA to three working days 
by working in a realtime environment was successfully concluded on 
14 March 1985. The Plexus P/60 microcomputer at New Cumberland 
served as the central repository for data transmitted electronically 
between the MSGs and USASAC in Alexandria and NCAD. Voice grade 
telephone lines used for communication caused difficulty in 
communication for all of the participants, however, and a decision 
was made to establish dedicated lines. 

(U) Security Affairs Support Directorate for Information 
Management (SASD1M) had responsibility of maintaining the micro- 
computer and related equipment to insure communication interface for 
all participants as well as to provide technical assistance to 
terminal operators during the exercise. DMIS personnel expended some 
200 manhours insuring that all requirements were met, including time 
spent in LOA meetings, preparing briefing materiel, researching 
software and hardware compatibility, installing dial-in modems on the 
Plexus P/60, preparing training material, training personnel in 
system access, UNIX operation, and text editors, preparing the 
microcomputer for the exercise, assisting MSCs in establishing 
telephone links and interacting via terminals, writing UNIX shell 
programs to aid monitoring of exercise progress, and preparing an 
after-action, lessons learned report. 

(U) MILSTR1P/MILSTAMP/MAPAD . The standard 8-hour orientation 
in MILSTRIP/M1LSTAMP/MAPAD (Military Standard Requisition and Issue 
Procedure, Military Standard Transportation and Movement Procedures, 
and Military Assistance Program Address Directory) was given to 535 
personnel at various CONUS and overseas locations in 32 separate 
sessions. AMC depots, Navy Transportation School - Oakland, freight 
forwarders, foreign embassies and commands, and USASAC received the 
lectures, blackboard demonstrations, slides, quizzes, and classroom 
discussion on these procedural systems for control and direction of 
materiel . 



23 



24 
25 
26 
27 



Countries inidicating high interest were the United Kingdom, 

Taiwan, Norway, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. The Philippines, 

Kuwait, and Jordan gave negative responses. 

Ibid. 

Ibid. 

Ibid. 

Ibid, p. 3. 



321 



Country Programs (U) 

(U) Financial Reviews . Country reviews to determine the 
validity of payment schedules and adjust case values as appropriate 
were completed during FY85 for Italy, Saudi Arabia, United Kingdom, 
Jordan, Morocco, Philippines, Egypt, Greece, and Japan. Potential 
savings to these countries, surfaced by the reviews, totalled 
approximately $59 million. 

(U) Emergency /Expedite Impact Shipments . Impact shipments in 
FY85 continued for El Salvador, spanning the fiscal year, while the 
high-priority shipments also included materiel going to Honduras, 
Lebanon, Somalia, Zaire, Chad, Tunisia, Pakistan, and Kenya. The 
impact shipments were described as being "the result of 
political/military decisions made at the highest levels of the US 
Government" requiring "the US Army to deliver equipment to foreign 
nations within specified expedited time frames." The actions 
required to ensure meeting such urgent delivery dates involved 
coordination throughout DOD and with AMC and non-AMC inventory 
managers, shipping depots, transportation activities, and the like, 
as well as immediate responses received after regular hours of 
operation. 

(U) Egypt Army Armament Authority . One of the more complex 
assistance projects undertaken in recent years was a 3-year effort to 
provide the Egypt Armament Authority with a computer facility built 
to US standards, hardware, software, and training pitched toward data 
processing, cataloging and FMS requisition tracking. Phase I of the 
project began in July 1985 and included establishment of the facility 
in Cairo and technical assistance provided in the continental United 
States. Phase II was to take place at the Cairo center and was to 
consist of technical assistance to the Egyptian programmer/analysts 
and systems programmer. A project manager and deputy project manager 
were assigned to perform the extraordinary actions required in the 
management of the case. 

The various components of the case were: 

* Computer hardware and operating 

software — procurement, delivery, installation, and 

maintenance; 



28 



29 
30 



Ibid. The country reviews are mandated by the Defense Security 

Assistance Agency (DSAA) which has identified Portugal, Indonesia, 

Tunisia, and Taiwan for country reviews in FY86. 

Ibid, p. 3. 

USASAC, FY85 AHR submission. Following country programs were 

reported from unclassified portions of the submission as well. 



322 



* Facility — design and construction of preengineered 
metal building housing the Egyptian Armament Authority 
Computer Center; 

* Furnishings — procurement, delivery, and 
installation of furnishings, to include ADP accessory 
equipment; 

* Supplies — procurement, delivery, and replenishment 
of office and ADP supplies for center; 

* Training — formal and on-the-job training for up to 31 
students, lasting 5 weeks, for functional cataloging 
fundamentals; further contractor-provided ADP training, 
and training of four students to qualify them as 
operating systems programmers; 

* Technical assistance — technical assistance for up 

to 10 application programmer/analysts at USASAC for up 
to 4 months following completion of formal training, 
and on-site technical assistance for 1 year by one 
contractor technical representative specializing in 
operating systems software and by one DOD technical 
representative specializing in application systems 
design and programming; and 

* Case management — project manager and deputy project 
manager guidance to perform actions required to manage 
case . 

(U) Denmark - Hawk . Leases were initiated to cover two 
batteries of Improved Hawk missile systems as continuation of a 1981 
agreement on prepositioning for US Marines amphibious brigades. The 
first delivery under one of the leases (LAB) was delivered in August 
1985 with a total value of $13,380,027. The other, lease LAC, was 
scheduled for delivery in March 1986; its value totalled 
$11, 020, 378. 31 

(U) France - MLRS . USASAC implemented FMS Case FR-B-UXY for 
one Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) Self-Propelled 
Launcher/Loader (SPLL) on 28 December 1984. Delivery of the SPLL was 
to occur in December 1985. 

(U) Germany . A Memorandum of Understanding (M0U) signed 
7 September 1985 with the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) promised 
delivery of the mission equipment package (MEP) for the Advanced 

31 Ibid. 



323 



Attack Helicopter (AAH). Two FhS cases were offered the FRG, 
covering developmental work, reliability efforts, configuration 
management, and transfer of data for the MEP. Acceptance of these 
cases, exceeding $18.5 million in toto, was expected during November 
1985. In addition, FhS Case GY-B-WIA, relating to the US/FRG 
Agreement on Cooperative Measures for enhancing Air Defense for 
Central Europe, was implemented on 8 February 1985. This involved 
$1,155,568,295 for the Patriot missile system. 

(U) Israel . On 9 October 1985, the government of Israel signed 
an MOU with the United States for cooperative research and develop- 
ment to improve the M109 howitzers in the inventories of both 
countries. The agreement was for a 4-year effort involving 
expenditure of an estimated $202 million. Israel signed a Letter of 
Offer for $28 million, representing their share of the effort. 

(U) North Atlantic Treaty Organization . Weapon systems 
partnership agreements for the Patriot missile and for the Multiple 
Launch Rocket System (MLRS) were concluded on lb August and 26 August 
respectively, to establish common logistics support under the NATO 
Maintenance and Supply Agency (NAMSA) in Luxembourg. The agreements 
were signed by Germany, Netherlands, NAMSA, and the United States for 
the Patriot, and Germany, Italy, France, United Kingdom, NAMSA, and 
the United States for MLRS. The agreements sought a common 
MLRS/Patriot missile repair facility and depot maintenance capability 
by 1989. 

(U) Netherlands . The United States and the Netherlands reached 
agreement in principle on Cooperative Measures for Enhancing Air 
Defense for Central Europe 4 September 1985, covering the Patriot 
missile system. By the agreement, the United States would identify 
$70 million in Netherlands' defense products and services for 
acquisition by the United States and the Netherlands would provide or 
fund manpower and services over a 10-year period to enable a 
reduction of Patriot nonrecurring cost recoupment charges amounting 
to $33.3 million. Also, the Netherlands FMS Case for the MLRS SPLL 
(see France, above) was initiated with a value of $4,661,389, as was 
FMS Case NE-B-VQU for 820 improved Tube-Launched, Optically-Tracked, 
Wire-Guided (TOW 2) missiles at $31,167,389. Acceptance for both was 
anticipated by 31 December 1985. 

(U) Norway . Two cases for the TOW 2 missile system were 
initiated and presented to the government of Norway. The missiles 
were to come from Special Defense Acquisition Fund (SDAF) assets, 
number 1,350 in all, and total $13,762,183 in value. The 98 TOW 2 
launchers were valued at $8,490,917. The schedule for both foresaw 
signing in early November 1985. 



324 



(U) Spain . In FY85 , 37 FMS cases Were released to Spain having 
a combined value of S41.3 million. Overhaul and product improvement 
of Spain's Improved-Hawk missiles was implemented in June 1985. 
These two cases amounted to a value of $25 million between them. 

(U) Turkey . A major artillery upgrade briefing was held in 
June 1985 at the Defense Industrial Cooperation Executive Committee 
Meeting. Part of the United States "best efforts support" to Turkey 
under the Defense and Economic Cooperation Agreement, the artillery 
initiative bore fruit with agreement to deliver 16 M110A2 howitzers 
by January 1986. Other ongoing projects managed by Army under 
DECA/DIC included a fifth and final procurement of tank conversion 
subkits and a third procurement of 15 UH-1I1 helicopters. Altogether, 
the Turkish Army's FMS program climbed to over $1.2 billion. 

Saudi Arabian National Guard Modernization Program (U) 

(U) The 12-year-old program of modernizing the Saudi Arabian 
National Guard (SANG), the full-time active duty forces commanded in 
FY85 by HRH Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz and the 6-year-old 
program of modernizing SANG ' s medical services made the Office of 
Project Manager, SANG Modernization, unique within USASAC. OPM SANG 
was totally funded by the Saudi government through FMS cases, yet the 
project involved not so much of weapons system development and 
acquisition as of large dollar contract administration, FMS case 
management, and advice and assistance to SANG. 

(U) In FY85, the project was geared to maintaining the ready 
status of a first brigade with four combined arms battalions while 
bringing along units of a second brigade, with the objective of 
having two modernized brigades, each with four combined arms 
battalions (CAB), an artillery battery, a Vulcan air defense platoon, 
and an engineer platoon. Also, self-sufficiency was being developed 
for SANG in the areas of training and logistics support through 
establishment of of a general support logistics base, a military and 
technical school system, brigade headquarters, signal company, and a 
direct support logistics battalion. The modernization of the medical 
services included development and operation of a 500-bed tertiary 
care facility as well as field medical care. 

(U) Office of the Project Manager . On 6 March 1985, a new 
charter was issued for the PM SANG from the Secretary of the Army. 

(U) A new table of distribution and allowances prepared within 
OPM SANG to reflect internal realignments was submitted to HQ AMC in 
March 1985 and approved the same month. The changes abolished a 

32 Ibid, p. 13. 



325 





Officer 


Enlisted 


Civilian 


TCN 


1st Qtr 


35 


5 


97 


32 


2d Qtr 


38 


5 


93 


29 


3rd Qtr 


31 


5 


89 


30 


4th Qtr 


34 


5 


75 


31 



supervisory layer in the resource management division, restructured 
the medical management directorate (MMD) to reflect a shift in the 
medical program focus toward greater concern for SANG field medical 
services capabilities (the field medical program and the King Fahad 
Hospital becoming separate branches), and formation of a plans and 
programs branch to assure strategic planning and consideration of 
broad program issues outside the scope of the functional divisions. 

(U) Manpower requirements declined by one to 188 with the TDA 
changes, although manpower authorizations were unchanged at the 
outset of the year at 138, but declined to 133 in the second quarter 
and for the remainder of the year. The actual assigned strength, 
with the overhires, was as follows: 

Total 

169 
165 
155 

145 

The authorized strength was: 

Officer Enlisted Civilian TCN* Total 

138 
133 
133 

133 

(* TCN = third country national) 

(U) Finance and accounting support was given from the outside. 
This came from the Corps of Engineers Middle East Division until 
1 June 1985. Afterwards, the US Military Training Mission (USMTM) in 
Dhahran was able to provide support, including in-country voucher 
processing . 

(U) A total of 16 subcases were closed during the year, 
involving final delivered values totalling $2,505,092 in the first 
quarter, $7,347,839 in the second, $315,503,318 in the third, and 
$9,425,084 in the third. Closure of these subcases resulted in funds 
being transferred back to the holding account for the master case 
amounting to over $36,869,000. Major reprogramming of funds for the 
FMS modernization subcases and a revised deposit schedule gained 



1st Qtr 


41 


5 


72 


20 


2d Qtr 


41 


5 


67 


20 


3rd Qtr 


41 


5 


67 


20 


4th Qtr 


41 


5 


67 


20 



33 

34 



Ibid, pp. 10, 13. 
Ibid, p. 17. 



326 



approval from the Defense Security Assistance Agency (DSAA) and the 
Security Affairs Accounting Center (SAAC) . As a result, OPM SANG had 
its mission objectives funded through December 1987 with no further 
funding required from SANG. For the medical program, SANG made a 
$63.6 million deposit on 6 March 1985, which was reported as an 
advance payment on the final deposit to the medical program, due in 
July 1987. 35 

(D) Headquarters Saudi Arabian National Guard . In the first 
quarter, FY85, Headquarters, SANG set up a field training exercise 
(FTX) planning cell to plan, coordinate, and execute the annual 
Spring FTX. Assuming the bulk of the responsibility from the outset, 
the planning cell used OPM resources only for "over-the-shoulder" 
training and also significantly reduced reliance on the contractor. 
The results of the preparation, carried out through functional area 
planning cells at SANG's underground command center were rated an 
overwhelming success when carried out in the second quarter. The 
after action report was completed and sent to HQ SANG on 22 April 
1985. It was given a great amount of time by HQ SANG for analysis of 
the identified problem areas. It was in time to impact planning for 
the new training year, including the 1986 Spring FTX that began in 
the third quarter and was well advanced by the fourth. Specifically, 
the Spring 1986 FTX exercise area was selected and objectives of the 
exercise were in development by the end of the year. 

(U) Groundwork laid earlier began to pay off in the second 
quarter of FY85 in personnel management and administration, an area 
that OPM rated as perhaps the most troublesome in its modernization 
efforts. Significant improvements were made in assigning/ 
reassigning personnel in accordance with authorization documents, 
although the lack of current personnel information, data being 
3 to 4 months old, was a major problem. Also, SANG sent selected 
officers to adjutant general basic and advanced courses, the first 
CONUS training of SANG officers in personnel management and 
administration . 

(U) Effective counterpart relationships with officers from the 
SANG directorates of training and personnel marked the year. The new 
OPM personnel staff officer was able to establish an effective 
liaison after his arrival in the fourth quarter, and closer 
counterpart ties were looked for in both the officer personnel and 



35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 



loid, pp. 10, 13, 17, and 21. 

Ibiu, pp. 6, 10. 

Ibid, pp. 13, 18. 

FY84 AHR, Chapter VI. 

Ibid, p. 10. 

Ibid. 



327 



personnel divisions to further the effort to establish an effective 
personnel management system for SANG. Arrival of the new OPM 
personnel staff officer in the fourth quarter facilitated the 
modernization efforts for personnel and training. 

(U) At the end of the year, General Mohammed bin Abdullah al 
Amr , Chief of the Military Organization (CMO), had under review for 
follow-on action with both OPM SANG and the British advisory group, 
an organization and rank structure encompassing staff and command 
functions within SANG that he had requested of OPM, SANG and which 
was briefed to him on 25 September 1985. 

(U) In the training arena, PM SANG prepared a draft training 
policy directive and presented it for consideration by SANG. Modeled 
after AR 350-1, it sought to link SANG training efforts vertically, 
giving HQ SANG command and control of training policy. Prior to this 
third quarter effort, SANG training efforts were focused horizontally 
at brigade and lower level units with little communication or control 
from one layer to the next. Concurrently with this effort, the 
contractor was tasked to formalize supporting "how to" 25-series 
training manuals for subordinate command training managers. Arabic 
versions of Field Manuals 25-1 and 25-2 were drafted and submitted to 
OPM for review and approval. 

(U) HQ SANG officers from the Directorate of Training, 
Collective Training Branch, and OPM officers by the end of the year 
had proceeded through the second part of a developmental study for a 
range complex and maneuver training area near Al Hasa in the Eastern 
Province. The range was to support units from the 2d brigade 
stationed at Al Hasa as well as unmodernized units stationed in the 
Eastern Province. 

(U) Meanwhile, HQ SANG established an accelerated training 
schedule for the new units of the 2d Brigade, now given the official 
designation of the King Abdul Aziz Brigade. The school and 
collective training of the 7th Combined Arms Battalion (CAB) was 
accelerated to ensure graduation by March 1986. Individual basic and 
advanced skill training for the 8th CAB and the 7th Field Artillery 
Battery (FAB) were accelerated to ensure a sufficiency of students at 
the Military and Technical Schools (M&TS) ., Scheduled graduation 
dates for these two units were kept as is. 

41 

42 

43 
44 
45 

46 Ibid, p. 18. 



328 



Ibid, 


pp. 17, 


18. 


Ibid, 


p. 18. 




Ibid, 


p. 14. 




Ibid. 






Ibid, 


p. 17. 





(U) In the fourth quarter, HQ SANG monitored the deployment, 
participation and redeployment of four CABs and one artillery 
battalion from the 1st Brigade to the Mecca/Medina area to support 
internal security operations during August. All units deployed 
without crew-served weapons and armored vehicles and returned to 
Riyadh without incident. 

(U) New Unit Training - 2d Brigade HQ . Following an intensive 
training period in the field, the 2d Brigade HQ completed its new 
unit training. Formed 1 May 1984, the new unit training began with 
the new fiscal year after school training of its personnel. A series 
of command post exercises (CPX) and FTXs culminated with successful 
completion of the Saudi Arabian National Guard Training and 
Evaluation Program (SANGTEP), and on 23 December 1984 the SANG CMC- 
gave the brigade headquarters command and control of all 2d Brigade 
elements, 8 months from the date of its formation. Equipment 
shortages were a problem for the brigade headquarters, but these were 
primarily SANG-furnished items, and the 2d Brigade HQ was formally 
graduated following the Spring FTX. 

(U) 6th CAB . The 2d Brigade Headquarters and Headquarters 
Company (HHC) drew support from the 6th CAB through new unit 
training, first with a CPX cell and then with the entire battalion in 
a 4-week FTX, culminating with the the 2d Brigade opposing forces 
SANGTEP in November 1984. The 6th CAB moved on to equipment 
maintenance and preparation for individual and crew-served weapons 
firing in January 1985. 

(U) 5th Artillery Battery . The 5th Artillery Battery conducted 
two live fire exercises during the first quarter, part of training 
preparing the battery for its 27-30 January SANGTEP. Collective 
training for Headquarters and Headquarters Battalion (HHB) and 
Service Battery began 1 February 1985. The battery was fully 
trained and qualified on the M198 howitzer (155mm) and passed the 
M198 new equipment SANGTEP in February. Participating in the Spring 
FTX, it engaged in a live fire demonstration for HRH Crown Prince 
Abdullah. Its command and control proved weak during the Spring FTX, 
however, and in the third quarter, with a new commander, it completed 
three reconnaissance/selection/occupation of positions (RSOP) 
exercises. Together with other elements, it successfully completed 
and 0PM SANG SANGTEP evaluation the following August. 



47 
48 
49 
50 
51 



Ibid, 


P« 


Ibid, 


P- 


Ibid, 


P- 


Ibid, 


P* 


Ibid, 


PP 



17. 
6. 
6. 
6. 
10, 14. 



329 



(U) 2d Artillery Battalion HHB and Service Battery . The 2d 
Artillery Battalion HHB and Service Battery commenced collective 
training 1 February 1985, which it continued until completing the OPM 
SANG SANGTEP in August 1985 with the 5th Artillery Battery. 
Highlights included 3-week- long CPXs in the third quarter, working on 
staff training exercises, command and control operations, 
maintenance, and ammunition resupply procedures. Bad weather and 
poor preparation gave both batteries problems, but significant 
improvements were marked by the second week. 

(U) 7th CAB . In the 7th CAB, the HHC and 1st Rifle Company 
began new unit training 4 May 1985, each with 109 percent of 
personnel. Equipment issue was a problem. Less than half of the 
SANG-procured equipment was on hand when training began, and the unit 
commander and property book officer made some headway in active 
pursuit of filling shortages. Training progressed from squad level 
organization and technical training through section and platoon 
levels to company- level training, the battalion staff performing 
superbly. 

Graduated Units - 1st Brigade . Personnel, training, and 
equipment problems troubled the 1st Brigade through the year. The 
Brigade Headquarters postponed field training programs from the first 
into the second quarter of the year, making three full quarters with 
no field training. When the headquarters finally took to the field 
in a 6-9 January FTX, the outing could not serve as the unit's 
SANGTEP due to a generally unsatisfactory overall performance. 

(U) The four 1st Brigade CABs trained in the first and second 
quarters on individual and crew-served weapons qualification, 
mechanized infantry squad proficiency course (MISPC), platoon level 
offense and defense training, and maintenance. Training of 
low-density military occupational specialties (MOS)— particularly 
supply, maintenance, and medical personnel — was problematic. ' 

(U) The 1st Artillery Battalion did conduct field live fire 
exercises in the first quarter for all four of its batteries. As 
with the CABs, its preparations were geared toward effective 
performance at the Spring FTX. 

(U) For the 1st Engineer Company, the first quarter was marked 
by its successful clearance of four ranges of unexploded ordnance. 
Its problem areas were low-density construction MOS training and lack 



52 
53 
54 
55 



Ibid, pp. 10, 14, 18. 

Ibid, pp. 14, 18. 

Ibid, p. 7, 10. 

Ibid, pp. 7, 10. 



330 



of repair parts, although most table of organization and equipment 

(TOE) shortages were filled in the quarter. The lack of repair 

parts, however, meant a hesitancy ou the part of SANG to commit the 
unit to earth-moving projects. 

(U) The 1st Logistics Support Battalion also experienced 
problems in maintaining repair parts in inventory. The authorized 
stockage list (ASL) was not routinely replenished through the 
established procurement system. Attempts to correct these problems 
included such second quarter efforts as reducing its ASL from 8,7b3 
lines to 7,000 lines to make the technical supply operations more 
manageable, and inventory of prescribed load list (PLL) stockages. 
The latter disclosed such problems as zero balances on 543 of 623 PLL 
lines for the 1st LSB Maintenance Company. Due to exchange of Steyr 
trucks for Dodge W600 trucks that had been occurring over the prior 
year, the battalion turned in 1,000 lines of W600 repair parts and 
received an initial issue of Steyr repair parts for its ASL and unit 
PLLs. 

(U) Spring FTX . Performance during the 20 February to 12 March 
Spring FTX was judged satisfactory overall for all units. The 1st 
Brigade Headquarters made significant improvement over its January 
FTX. The 2d CAB compiled the best unit record during the 
particularly challenging spring exercise and was awarded the Prince 
Abdullah Cup. The 1st Artillery Battalion included a combined 
operational readiness test (CORT), a 1,500-kilometer road march, a 
security mission, a 5-day tactical training exercise, and a live-fire 
exercise during the Spring FTX, compiling particularly commendable 
results in the areas of fire support, convoy movement, tactical 
proficiency, communications, and staff planning, although proving 
weak in areas of basic soldier skills, intelligence operations, and 
operator maintenance. 

(U) The 1st Engineer Company attributed its successful 
completion of a SANGTEP , a CORT, and the Spring FTX in the second 
quarter to a qualified complement of noncommissioned officer 
personnel . 



5b Ibid, p. 7. 

57 Ibid, pp. 7-11. 

D0 Ibid, p. 10. 

^ Ibid. 



331 



(U) The 1st LSB deployed, participated in, and returned from 
the Spring FTX with only minor problems. Its preparation for and 
support it furnished during the exercise was superior, with improve- 
ment over the past year noted in the areas of fuel, electrical, and 
communications electronics (COMMEL) support. 

(U) Third Quarter Activity . Elements of the 1st Brigade 
conducted its most successful CPX at the close of the third quarter, 
employing a counter-terrorist scenario. Planning, participation, and 
execution by the brigade and CAB staffs were excellent. However, 
despite coordination with HQ SANG, the headquarters did not provide 

participants to the exercise, detracting somewhat from the overall 

u c • .. til 
benefit . 

(U) The four CABs each received 15 new lieutenants during the 
third quarter but still remained below authorized strength, although 
operationally functional. The CABs conducted their own MOS training 
and testing, primarily during the month of Ramadan. Although the 
efforts were successful, low-density MOS training was again not 
adequately met. Increased battalion command emphasis on maintenance 
improved problems in this area somewhat, although brigade emphasis 
was still lacking. Aging V-150s placed a strain on maintenance 
support, but no critical equipment shortages existed during the 
quarter. 

(U) Although cancelled in the fourth quarter, the task of 
constructing a temporary sports complex fell to the 1st Engineer 
Company in the third quarter. Assigned by the CMO, the project was 
to provide both individual skills and construction management 
training and was to be the first collective training the unit was to 
receive in construction. Planning was undertaken under the close 
monitoring of the engineering support officer, who believed that 
further construction projects should be undertaken by the company on 
successful completion of the project. Anticipation of heavy 
engineering equipment breakdown prior to field training duty prompted 
cancellation of the project by the CMO in the fourth quarter. 

(U) The 1st Artillery Battalion conducted individual and 
crew-served weapons familiarization classes in the third quarter. In 
June, it held its semi-annual live fire exercises at the range at 
Khashm Al An (KAA). The brigade fire support officer instructed 16 



*j° Ibid, p. 11. 

61 Ibid, p. 14. 

62 Ibid. 

63 Ibid, pp. 15, 19. 



332 



recently assigned second lieutenants in forward observer procedures 
during Ramadan. Generally, limited individual section training was 
held in the quarter, the impact of Ramadan. 

(U) Fourth Quarter Activities . In the 1st Brigade, logistics 
problems made effective maintenance programs nearly impossible in the 
fourth quarter. Repair parts, and trained mechanics and supply 
personnel were scarce. The Vulcan systems were particularly 
affected. Property accountability also became a concern. The 
brigade performed well operationally, however, and training was not 
severely impacted. Of particular importance, SANG again participated 
in the Hadj security. Five battalions, plus augmentation, moved to 
the Mecca/Medina area with greater efficiency in both movement and 
operations than in previous years. Clear-cut divisions in communica- 
tions and logistics responsibilities established by the staff 
contributed to the improvement. SANG personnel were also assigned to 
a joint command and control staff for the mission. The unit training 
readiness suffered somewhat due to the operations, but there was no 
difficulty in making up the lost training time. What attention ivas 
paid to training concentrated oh riot control for the CABs. 

(U) The 1st LSB was not required to provide logistics support 
to the 1st Brigade units during the Hadj mission. Their training in 
the fourth quarter, besides riot control, included command and staff 
training and preparation for a brigade- level CPX. 

(U) 2d Brigade . The only graduated 2d Brigade element at the 
beginning of the year, the 2d LSB provided effective support to 2d 
Brigade elements throughout the year. The 2d Brigade Headquarters 
received its help for numerous tactical CPXs , FTXs, and logistical 
exercises (LOGEX) through the first quarter, improving its own 
coordination and support as the 2d Brigade itself moved toward its 
own successful graduation. 

(II ) Selected to test the operational effectiveness of a new 
approved-f or-test combat service support (CSS) doctrine that divides 
the battalion into forward and rear elements, the 2d LSB received 
detailed training in the doctrine and applied it in a brigade-level 
logistical exercise in January 1985. During the Spring FTX the 
doctrine was again applied with good results as over 300 job orders 
were completed during the FTX and only six vehicles required 
evacuation beyond the LSB level. 



Ibid, p. 15. 
Ibid, p. 18. 



65 
66 

67 
68 



Ibid. 

Ibid, p. 7. 
Ibid, p. 11. 



333 



(U) Third quarter, the 2d Brigade emphasized basic individual 
skills maintenance and officer and NCO professional development. The 
brigade headquarters developed and conducted a 3-week officer 
professional development class for brigade officers. Following, the 
CAB NCO's were given a 2-week course at the battalion level. 

(U) In the final quarter of the year, the 2d Brigade conducted 
a CORT, a communications exercise (COMMEX) involving all battalions, 
and a brigade CPX. The 2d LSB further distinguished itself in these 
activities, giving performance that clearly demonstrated the unit's 
ability to coordinate, schedule, and conduct meaningful training as 
well as its ability to coordinate and support tactical operations. 
MOS testing and readiness assistance training were judged to have 
contributed to the improvement of individual and unit performance. 

(U) Military and Technical Schools (M&TS) . Planning at the 
Military and Technical Schools continued through the year in an 
effort to arrive at a table of organization and equipment (TOE) that 
would reflect the mission of SANG's training center against the 
restraints of limited resources. The tone was set in the first 
quarter as OPM and the principal M&TS staff officers coordinated 
their efforts toward development of a comprehensive and realistic 
Program Manager's Master Plan (PMMP) for the schools. The proposed 
goals, objectives, and resources went through numerous discussions 
and ref inements to ensure acceptance of the PMMP during the 
Country-to-Country review. In the process, the M&TS staff 
demonstrated its knowledge and maturity through the quality of 
refinements aud new concepts the SANG personnel initiated. The TOE 
revision was launched as a recommendation by the contractor, and in 
the first quarter was refined by the M&TS Commander and staff and 
submitted to HQ SANG for approval. 

(U) The TOE was reworked in the third quarter as a joint effort 
between M&TS and HQ SANG to reflect greater realism with respect to 
personnel and equipment. Although the equipment portion of the TOE 
was still unsettled at the end of the year, the personnel portion was 
approved on 10 September and reflected a decrease of the required 
1,908 personnel spaces by 77 due to budgetary limitations. 

(U) Contemporaneously with approval of the personnel portion of 
the TOE, tne M&TS was renamed the National Guard Military Schools 
(NGMS) by ttie CMO . 



69 


Ibid, 


p. 


\b. 


/O 


Ibid, 


p. 


19. 


71 


Ibid, 


P* 


7. 


11 
73 


ibid, 


pp, 


- 15, 


Ibid, 


P- 


19. 



19 



334 



(U) Continuing difficulties were experienced during the year 
due to personnel shortages and other personnel practices. 
Shortcomings in the area of training development and staff training 
reflected a lack of officers assigned to the Plans, Evaluation, and 
Analysis Branch and the lack of approved curriculum development 
procedures. Particularly disruptive was the practice of SANG of 
reassigning trained officers into other positions. 

(U) In the third quarter of the year, SANG assumed 
responsibility of the printing operation from Vinnell and was 
pursuing takeover of the entire publications effort. The SANG 
Print Plant became the new home for printing equipment formerly 
situated at the Vinnell camp. Whether the Vinnell work force would 
continue to be used was to have been decided after September and the 
Hadj security effort. 

(U) The SANG Director of Logistics (DOL) continued to assume 
increased responsibility for functional areas that had formerly been 
handled by the school. The turnover of all training property and 
accountability to SANG personnel was completed by the end of the 
fiscal year. The Training Equipment, Maintenance, and Transportation 
ij ranches moved into new facilities id the fourth quarter, but managed 
to continue training support with minimal disruption. 

(U) Logistics Base Command . As the year began, the Logistics 
Base Command was still dealing with the many problems that attended 
replacement of Dodge trucks with new Steyr vehicles. Critical areas 
of activity were development of maintenance allocation charts, 
training in support of mechanics and drivers, development of PLLs and 
ASLs for the combat units, development of stockage objectives for the 
logistics base, and development of communications retrofit packages 
to support tactical radio systems within the brigades. 

(U) As the year advanced, the LBC began preparations for the 
Spring FTX and a move to its new headquarters building in Khashm al 
An (KAA) , both of which occurred in the second quarter. In a lighter 
vein, the LBC planned, organized and directed the annual camel races, 
also in the second quarter. 



74 
75 

76 
77 
78 
79 



Ibid, pp. 12, 15. 

Reported in the FY84 AHR, a publications backlog for translating 

and printing Arabic training materials had begun to grow. 

Ibid, p. 15. 

Ibid, p. 20. 

Ibid, p. 8. 

Ibid, p. 12. 



335 



(U) The LBC commander became concerned about property 
accountability and in the third quarter advocated the transfer of 
functions from the contractor to the LBC. Quarterly production was 
down in the third quarter together with working hours due to Ramadan. 
A care and preservation of supplies in storage (COSIS) program was 
initiated, however. 

(U) Security plans for the KAA facilities were completed and 
gained implementation approval. Serviceable Class II and IV 
equipment (clothing and individual equipment, among other items, and 
construction materials) were relocated to the KAA warehouse from the 
Nassariyah storage facility, while transfer of functions and property 
from the contractor self-service supply center to the SANG was still 
pending. Support to the 1st Brigade's Hadj mission included sending 
repair parts to the Western Province to be available to the SANG 
security elements in Mecca. Full operations were resumed at the 
LBC's apprenticeship facility as tools and equipment were transferred 
from the contractor to SANG and 19 apprentices enrolled for training, 
a major milestone for the LBC. 

(U) Nonmodernized Unit Training . Nonmodernized SANG units in 
the Eastern and Western provinces trained for 7 weeks from mid-March 
to mid-May with special forces A-teams deployed from Fort Bragg, 
North Carolina. This step had several years of discussion and 
planning behind it and carried the personal interest of Crown Prince 
Abdullah. Rated as highly successful, the pilot effort followed a 
"train the trainers" concept that keyed on officers and NCOs, a total 
of 190 students. Topics taken up in the 7-week program included 
weapons, land navigation, leadership, and defensive tactics. The 
training was completed 16 May 1985. 

(U) Light Armored Vehicle Test . A test of Light Armored 
Vehicles (LAV) to find a possible replacement for the 1st Brigade's 
gas-powered V-150s was conducted from 26 November to 22 December 
1984. 0PM and SANG had worked closely to develop the 3-week test 
plan, which included an extensive list of test parameters in the 
areas of mobility, maintainability, dependability/ reliability, 
protection/survivability , and firepower. The test report on the six 
candidate LAVs was finished on 18 February and forwarded to Crown 
Prince Abdullah. Although 0PM SANG worked closely with HQ SANG on 
the report, the final product was SANG's. 



80 Ibid, p. 15. 

81 Ibid, p. 19. 

82 Ibid, pp. 8, 12. 



336 



(U) As background to developing its LAV requirements, UQ SANG 
and OPM representatives traveled to the United States in June to 
acquaint themselves with the US Marine Corps' LAV experience. They 
visited the USMC LAV Test Facility at 29 Palms, California, and 
reviewed LAV test results from prototype, production mode, and 
production vehicles for all variants. They also reviewed LAV courses 
and related maintenance instruction at the USMC Infantry School at 
Camp Pendleton, California, and the training program for the LAV 
Battalion from Camp Lejeune at the US Army Infantry Center at Fort 
Benning, Georgia. The AMC Project Manager LAV office, AMC also 
briefed the visitors on contracting and equipment integration 
problems they would be facing. 

(U) Facilities . Phase II of the 5-year Facility Master Plan 
began with the signing of a contract between the Vinnell Corporation 
and Leo A. Daly and Company in the fourth quarter. The subcontractor 
was to provide, among other things, an updated review of existing 
area land usage and individual building usage at KAA, a plan for 
expanding the KAA range, a list of facilities needed for each 
modernized unit, and identification of facilities required to be 
built or renovated to meet future requirements. 

(U) Procurement and Contracts . Phase II of the Force 
Modernization Program (Contract DAAG99-S1-C-0010) with VinneLI 
Corporation was to expire on 31 December 1985, and work began on 
developing a successor contract. The PM examined alternative methods 
for maintaining contractor support for 1986 and 1987, and he, in 
turn, worked with SANG officials to decide the best approach for 
contract extension. A request for proposal was issued to Vinnell 
Corporation on 8 June 1985 outlining a significantly reduced level of 
activity for the contractor for the 1986 and 1987 contract period. 
Vinnell 1 s proposal was received on 24 July and underwent technical 
and price evaluation. Following AMC ' s approval of the advance 
procurement plan and justification for noncompetitive procurement, 
negotiations commenced with Vinnell on 16 September and were close to 
conclusion at the end of the fiscal year. 

(U) The Phase II contract, meanwhile, underwent modifications 
48-52 during the first and second quarters. The first set of 
modifications to the existing contract related to expenditure 
authority for FY85 and to correction of appropriation data, while in 
the second quarter the modification called for turning all printing 
and reproduction responsibility over to SANG by 1 May 1985, which was 
accomplished. Vinnell was determined to have earned an award fee 



83 
84 
85 



Ibid, p. 16. 
Ibid, p. 20. 
Ibid, pp. 12, 13, 16, and 20. 



337 



under the contract amounting to 91 percent for the last half of 1984. 
The 6-month award fee criteria and weights underwent change for the 
final 6-month period of the Phase II contract. 

(U) King Fahad Hospital . SANG continued on a path of 
contracting directly for medical services following expiration of the 
contract between OPM SANG and the Hospital Corporation of America, 
Mideast (HCAME), Ltd. With the contract due to expire on 28 February 
1985, SANG at first withheld formal approval to extend the contract 
by 6 months due to its interest in competitively bidding the medical 
services themselves. Shortly before expiration, however, a 3-month 
extension was approved in the amount of $19.7 million, and all 
subcontracts were also extended as well. Then in the third quarter, 
the contract was extended for an additional 9 months to 28 February 
1986 at the request of SANG, which estimated it would take that long 
before a follow-on contractor could be selected and mobilized. The 
extension, which also provided for additions to the scope of work, to 
include dermatology, allergy, and dialysis services, as well as 
increased bed levels in pediatrics, short Slay, and extended care 
units, was in the amount of $73.8 million. 

(U) SANG requested OPM assistance in conducting the full 
competition leading to award of a new contract. The Acquisition 
Management Division provided recommendations to SANG as to type and 
length of contract as well as specific steps to follow in the 
acquisition process. 

(U) In other actions, the HCAME contract was modified in the 
first quarter to allow an additional $20 million in the contract 
amount to fund cost growth due to increases beyond the control of 
either the contractor or the US Government. Also in this period, a 
modification of $20,426,226 went through to finalize the amount 
needed for equipment and spare parts during the life of the contract. 
As with the contract extensions, both modifications required AMC 
review and approval due to high dollar values. 



8( ? Ibid, pp. 8, 12, and 16. 

87 Ibid, pp. 9, 13, and 17. 

88 Ibid, p. 9. 
^ Ibid: 



338 



GLOSSARY 



AA&E 

AAFES 

AAH 

AAI 

AAO 

AAP 

AAWS-M 

ABCA 

AC 

ACA 

ACADA 

ACAP 

ACC 

AMCCPS 

ACCS 

ACE 

ACES 

ACES 

ACOA 

ACOCS 

ACPERS 

ACRC 

ACS 

ACSIM 

ACTEDS 

AD 

AD 

AD 

ADA 

ADCCS 

ADCS 

ADDS 

ADEA 

ADES 

ADEWS 

ADP 

ADS 

ADSPEC 

ADT 

AECA 

AERB 

AFD 



Arras, Ammunition and Explosives 

Army and Air Force Exchange Service 

Advanced Attack Helicopter 

Automated Autodin Interface 

Authorized Acquisition Objective 

Army Ammunition Plant 

Advanced Anti-Tank Weapon System - Medium 

American, British, Canadian, Australian 

Alternating Current 

Air Clearance Authority 

Automatic Chemical Agent Detector and Alarm 

Army Chemical Action Plan 

Army Commander's Conference 

Army Materiel Command Civilian Personnel System 

Army Command and Control System 

Armored Combat Earthuiover 

Airdrop Controlled Exit System 

Army Continuing Education System 

Assistant Comptroller of the Army 

Army Customer Order Control System 

Army Civilian Personnel System 

Army Calibration and Repair Centers 

Army Community Service 

Assistant Chief of Staff for Information Management 

Army Civilian Training Education and Development 

System 
Advanced Development 
Air Defense 
Army Depot 

Air Defense Artillery 
Air Defense Command Control System 
Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff 
Army Data Distribution System 
Army Development and Employment Agency 
Air Defense Engagement System 
Air Defense Electronic Warfare System 
Automatic Data Processing 
Ammunition Delivery Systems 
Additional Specialty 
Air Data Terminal 
Arms Export Control Act 
Army Educational Requirement Board 
Army Functional Dictionary 



339 



AFh Army Family Housing 

AFi'f Air Force institute of Technology 

AFO Albuquerque Field Office 

AFLC Air Force Logistics Command 

AFP Annual Funding Program 

AFSC Air Force Systems Command 

AFT Annual Financial Targets 

AFV Army Fighting Vehicle 

AG Adjutant General 

AGES Air to Ground Engagement Simulators 

AGES Air to Ground Engagement System 

AGS Armored Gun System 

AHIP Advanced Helicopter Improvement Program 

AHR Annual Historical Review 

AID Acquisition Integrated Database 

A1F Army Industrial Fund 

AIMI Aviation Intensively Managed Item 

AIMI-X Army Intensive Managed Item - Expanded 

A1PN Army Integrated Publishing Network 

AIEDC Area Ionization Radiation Dosimetry Center 

AKERR Allied Kinetic Energy Recovery Rope 

AL Acquisition Letter 

ALAD Automatic Liquid Agent Detector 

ALC Army Learning Centers 

ALEP AMC Logistics Excellence Program 

ALMC US Army Logistics Management Center 

ALMSA Automated Logistics Management Systems Activity 

ALO Authorized Level of Organization 

ALOC Air Lines of Communication 

AMC US Army Materiel Command 

AMCADS AMC Announcement Distribution System 

AMCAPE MIC AMDF Product Enhancement 

AMCCC AMC Commander's Conference 

AMCCOM US Army Armament, Munitions, and Chemical Command 

AMCD Army Materiel Command Division 

AMC/D AMC Directions 

AMCDS AMC Deputy Chief of Staff for Security Assistance 

AMCEP AMC Exchange Program 

AMCLOG AMC Logistics 

AMCLOG 21 AMC Logistics 21 

AMCMB AMC Maintenance Board 

AMC-MOPES AMC Mobilization and Operations and Operations and 

Emergency Planning and Execution System 

AMCPSCC AMC Packing, Storing and Container ization Center 

AMCRM aMC Resource Management 

AMC-SA AMC Support Activity 

AMCSM AMC Supply, Maintenance and Transportation 

AMDF Army Master Data File 



340 



AMETA US Army Management Engineering Training Activity 

AMHA Army Management Headquarters Activities 

AMMRC Army Materials and Mechanics Research Center 

AMD Acquisition Management Division 

AMDF Army Master Data File 

AMETA US Army Management Engineering Training Agency 

AM1M Army Modernization Information Memorandum 

AM1T Aviation Maintenance Interchangeable Trainer 

AMD Army Missile Laboratory 

AMMDEX Army Maintenance Management Data Exchange 

AMMRC Army Materials and Mechanics Research Center 

AMP Army Materiel Plan 

AMP-MOD Army Material Plan Modernization 

AMSAA Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity 

AMSCO Army Management Structure Code 

ANAD Anniston Army Depot 

AMFO Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil 

AOAP Army Oil Analysis Program 

AOD Area-Oriented Depots 

AOD-MOD Area-Oriented Depot - Modernization 

AOE Army of Excellence 

APA Army Procurement Appropriations 

APC Armored Personnel Carriers 

APDS-T Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot-Tracing 

APE Ammunition Peculiar Equipment 

APESO Army Product Engineering Service Office 

APFSDS Armor-Piercing, Fin-Stabilized Disposing Sabot 

APG Aberdeen Proving Ground 

APM-MED Assistant Project Manager for Medical Management 

APORS Army Performance Oriented Review and Standards 

APU Auxiliary Power Unit 

AQL Acceptance Quality Level 

AQL Advanced Quick Look 

AR Army Regulation 

ARD Armor Training Devices 

ARDC Armaments Research and Development Center 

ARES AMC Readiness Evaluation System 

ARI Army Research Institute 

ARNG Army National Guard 

ARO Army Research Office 

ARRaDCOM US Army Armament Research and Development Command 

ARRCOM US Army Armament Materiel Readiness Command 

ARRLD US Army Readiness Command 

ARSTAF Army Staff 

ARTADS Army Tactical Data Systems 

ARTBASS Army Training Battle Simulation System 
ASA (ILaFM) Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, 
Logistics and Financial Management 



341 



ASA(FM) 

AS AMPLE 

ASAP 

ASARC 

ASAS 

ASB 

ASC 

ASC 

ASCO 

ASCP 

ASF 

ASH 

AS I 

ASL 

ASL 

ASRP 

ASRS 

AST 

AT ACS 

ATCAP 

ATE 

ATM 

ATPG 

ATSE 

ATSS 

AT ST 

ATTO 

ATTL 

AUTOD1N 

AVKADA 

AVRADCOM 

AVSCOM 

AVSF 

AWESS 

BCE 

bCE 

BCS 

BDAk 

BdFAA 

bFA 

UFA 

bFTA 

BFV 

BFVA 

BFVS 



Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial 

Management 
Army Security Assistance Materiel Projection and 

Logistics Estimate 
Army Science Assistance Program 
Army Systems Acquisition Review Council 
All Source Analysis System 
Army Science Board 
Air Standardization Committee 
Assembled Storage Configuration 
Advanced Systems Concept Organization 
Ammunition Specialist Career Program 
Army Stock Fund 
Advanced Scout Helicopter 
Additional Skill Identifier 
Atmospheric Sciences Laboratory 
Authorized Stockage List 

Ammunition Stockpile Reliability Program 
Automated Storage and Retrieval System 
Area Support Team 

Army Tactical Communications System 
Army Telecommunications Automation Program 
Automatic Test Equipment 
Anti-Tactical Missile 
Automatic Test Program Generators 
Army TPS Support Environment 
Automatic Test Support Systems 
Area TMDE Support Teams 
Army TMDE Technology Office 
Army Test Technology Laboratory 
Automatic Digital Network 

Avionics Research and Development Activity 
US Army Aviation Research and Development Command 
US Army Aviation Command 
Automatic Voice Switching Facility 
Automatic Weapon Effects Signature Simulator 

base-Level Commercial Equipment 

Baseline Cost Estimate 

Battery Computer Systems 

battle Damage Assessment and Repair 

Biological Defense Functional Area Analysis 

Battlefield Functional Areas 

Blank Fire Adapters 

Bulk Fuel Tank Assembly 

Bradley Fighting Vehicle 

Bradley Fighting Vehicle Armament 

Bradley Fighting Vehicle System 



342 



BIDE 

BII 

BIT 

BITE 

BMDSCOM 

BMAR 

BMD 

BMDSCOM 

BMY 

BN 

BO 

BO I 

BO IP 

BRDC 

BRL 

BSE 

BSEP 

BSTF 

BTA 

BSTS 

BTU 

BUCS 



Basic Identity Data Elements 

Basic Issue Items 

Buiit-ln Test 

Built-in Test Equipment 

Ballistic Missile Defense System Command 

Backlog of Maintenance and Repair 

Ballistic Missile Defense 

Ballistic Missile Defense System Command 

Bowen-McLaughlin York. 

Battalion 

Blanket Order 

Base of Issue 

Basic Issue Plan 

Belvoir Research and Development Center 

Ballistics Research Laboratory 

Base Support Installation 

Basic Skills Education Plan 

Base Shop Test Facility 

Bench Top Analysis 

BST Stations 

British Thermal Unit 

Backup Computer System 



CAA 

CAAS 

CAB 

CADM 

CADS 

CAHSS 

CAIRA 

CALS 

CALSIM 

CAM 

CAMDS 

CAO 

CARC 

CARNS 

CAS 

CASPER 

CAS PR 

CAWCF 

CAWS 

CBD 

CBI 

C 

C 3 
C J I 

CCB 



Concepts Analysis Agency 

Combined Artillery/ Aviation Simulator 

Combined Arms Battalion 

Cost Analysis for Decision Making 

Containerized Ammunition Distribution System 

Computer Assisted Health Services Simulation 

Chemical Accident/Incident Response and Assistance 

Computer Aided Logistic Support 

Calibration Simulation 

Computer Aided Manufacture 

Chemical Agent and Munition Disposal System 

Central Accounting Office 

Chemical Agent Resistant Coating 

Collision Avoidance Radar Navigation System 

Combined Arms School 

Conventional Ammunition Special Review 

Command Automated System for Procurement 

Conventional Ammunition Working Capital Fund 

Cannon Artillery Weapon System 

Clean-Burn Diesel 

Computer-Based Instruction 

Command and Control 

Command, Control, and Communications 

Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence 

Configuration Control Board 



343 



CCE/SMHE 

CCG 

CCM 

CCP 

CCPM 

CCb 

cess 

CDA 

CD AC 

CDC 

CDDB 

CDwS 

CECOM 

CEE 

CEGE 

CELP 

CELT 

CENTACS 

CEP 

CERL 

CEkCLA 

CERCOM 

CESMR 

CFA 

CFAA 

CFV 

CG 

CCS 

CGS 

CHAALS 

CICA 

C1E 

C1NCPAC 

CINCUSAREUR 

CIP 

CIS 

C1S-1L 

CIVR 

CLAMS 

CLFFK 

CLIN 

CLS 

CLSSA 

CM 



Commercial Construction Equipment and Selected 

Materiel Handling Equipment 
Configuration Control Group 
central Case Management 

Consolidation and Containerization Point 
Command Career Program Manager 
Communications Control System 
Commodity Command Standard System 
Catalog Data Activity 
Cost Discipline Advisory Committee 
Control Data Corporation 
Central Demand Data Base 
Cost Data Worksheet 

US Army Communications-Electronics Command 
Civilian Employment Estimate 
Combat Equipment Group, Europe 
Civilian Employment Level Plans 
Coherent Emitter Testbed 

US Army Center for Tactical Computer Systems 
Civilian Employment Projection 
Construction Engineering Research Laboratory 
Comprehensive Environment Response Compensation 

and Liability Act 
US Army Communications and Electronics Materiel 

Readiness Command 
Command Equipment and Supply Management Review 
Central Field Agency 
Chemical Functional Area Analysis 
Cavalry Fighting Vehicle 
Commanding General 
Command Grade Ceiling 
Commander's Guidance Statement 
Communications High Accuracy Airborne Location 

Subsystem 
Competition in Contracting Act 
Clothing Individual Equipment 
Commander-in-Chief Pacific 
Commander-in-Chief, US Army, Europe 
Career Intern Program 
Congressional Information Service 

Centralized Integrated System-International Logistics 
Configuration Item Verification Review 
Clearing Lane Marking System 
Company Level Field Feeding Kit 
Contract Line Item Number 
Contractor Logistics Support 

Cooperative Logistics Supply Support Arrangements 
Countermeasures 



344 



CilA 

CMO 

CiiO 

CMOS 

CMS 

CMSF 

COA 

COA 

COB 

COBE 

COE 

COEA 

COE I 

COFT 

COMMEL 

COMMEX 

COMSEC 

CONUS 

COOP 

COP 

CORADCOh 

CORT 

CORTS 

COSCOM 

COSIS 

CPAF 

CPIR 

CPb 

CPF 

CPFF 

CP1F 

CPIR 

CPO 

CPP 

CPT-1 

CPX 

CqQPRI 

CRA 

CRDC 

CRM 

CRT 

CRTC 

CSA 

CSC 

CSP 

CS 2 



Chemical Materiel Acquisition 

Chief of the Military Organization 

Configuration Management Office 

Complementary Metal-Oxide Semiconductor 

Conversational Monitoring System 

Command Morale Support Fund 

Comptroller of the Army 

Current Operating Allowance 

Command Operating Budget 

Command Operating Budget Estimate 

US Army Corps of Engineers 

Cost and Operational Effectiveness Analysis 

Components of End Items 

Conduct of Fire Trainer 

Communications Electronics 

Communications Exercise 

Communications Security 

Continental United States 

Continuation and Operation Plan 

Continuation of Pay 

US Army Communications Research and Development 

Command 
Combined Operational Readiness Test 
Command Operational Readiness Test System 
Corps Support Command 
Care of Supplies in Storage 
Cost-Plus-Award-Fee 

Command Performance Indicator Review 
Collective Protection Equipment 
Caribbean Peacekeeping Forces 
Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee 
Cost Plus incentive Fee 
Command Performance Indicator Review 
Civilian Personnel Office 
Camouflage Pattern Painting 
Comparative Production Test-1 
Command Post Exercise 
Condensed Qualitative and Quantitative Personnel 

Requirements Information 
Continuing Resolution Authority 
Chemical Research and Development Center 
Computer Resource Management 
Cathode Ray Tubes 
Cold Regions Test Center 
Chief of Staff, Army 
Combat Support Center 
Concurrent Spare Parts 
Combat Service Support 



345 



CSS 

CSSR 

CSTAL 

C/SCSC 

CTDR 

CTA 

CTED 

CTPG 

CTS 

CTX 

cucv 

CVE 

cw 

CW/BB 
CY 



Combat Service Support 

Cost Schedule Status Report 

Combat Surveillance and Target Acquisition Laboratory 

Cost/Schedule Control System Criteria 

Commercial Training Device Requirements 

Central TMDE Activity 

Civilian Training, Education and Development 

Comprehensive Test Plan Group 

Contact Test Set 

Center of Technical Excellence 

Commercial Utility Cargo Vehicle 

Combat Vehicle Evaluation 

Chemical Warfare 

Chemical Warfare and Biological Board 

Calendar Year 



DA 

DAAS 

DAES 

DAIG 

DAIP 

DAMPL 

DAMWO 

DAP 

DAR 

DARCOM 

DARPA 

DAS 

DASC-L&MM 

DATEA 

DAT IP 

DATP 

DATP1P 

DC 

DCAA 

DCAP 

DCAS 

DCG 

DC 3 I 

DCGRDA 

DCGMR 
DCGRM 
DCS 
DCS 



Department of the Army 

Defense Automatic Addressing System 

Defense Acquisition Executive Summary Reports 

DA Inspector General 

Defense Acquisition Improvement Program 

DA Military Priority List 

DA Modified Work Order 

Decontamination Apparatus Portable 

Defense Acquisition Regulation 

US Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 

Defense Audit Service 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics 

and Materiel Management 
DA TMDE Executive Agent 
DA TMDE Implementation Plan 
Detroit Army Tank Plant 
DA P1L In-Process Review Panel 
Direct Current 

Defense Contract Audit Agency 
DARCOM Chemical Action Plan 
Defense Contract Administration Services 
Deputy Commanding General 
Distributed Command, Control, Communications, and 

Intelligence 
Deputy Commandiug General for Research, Development 

and Acquisition 
Deputy Commanding General for Materiel Readiness 
Deputy Commanding General for Resource Management 
Deputy Chief of Staff 
Dial Central Offices 



346 



DCSAIM Deputy Chief of Staff for Automation and Information 

Management 

DCSI DCS for Intelligence 

DCS1M Deputy Chief of Staff for Information Management 

DCSLOG Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics 

DCSOPS Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations 

DCSLS DCS for Planning Technology 

DCSPEK Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel 

DCSRDA Deputy Chief of Staff for Research, Development and 

Acquisition 

DCSRM Deputy Chief of Staff for Resource Management 

DCSSMT Deputy Chief of Staff for Supply, Maintenance and 

Transportation 

DDN Defense Data Network 

DDSP Defense Development Sharing Program 

DEA Data Exchange Annexes 

DEDCNM Deputy Executive Director for Chemical and Nuclear 

Matters 

DEB Digital European Backbone 

DEF Duplicate Emergency Files 

DEFPLAN Defense Plan 

DEPSECDEF Deputy Secretary of Defense 

DESCOM US Army Depot Systems Command 

DESR Defense Environmental Status Report 

DEVA Development Acceptance 

DEWS Division Support Weapons Systems 

D&F Determination and Findings 

DF Direction Finder 

DFSR Detailed Functional System Requirement 

DID Data Item Description 

DISREP Discrepancy in Shipment Report 

D1VAD Division Air Defense 

DLA Defense Logistics Agency 

DLIELC Defense Language Institute English Language Center 

DLSIE Defense Logistics Studies Information Exchange 

DMA Deputy for Management and Analysis 

DMATS Defense Metropolitan Area Telephone System 

DMD Digital Message Device 

DM1S Directorate for Management Information Systems 

DMS Defense Materials Systems 

DMS Diminishing Manufacturing Sources 

DMSMS Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Materials 

Shortages 

DMWR Depot Maintenance Work Requirement 

DOCMOD Documentation Modernization 

DOD Department of Defense 

DODAAC Department of Defense Activity Address Code 

DODD Department of Defense Directive 



347 



DODSAP 

DOE 

DOIM 

DOL 

DOMS 

DOS 

DUT 

DPAD 

DPM 

DPS 

DRAAG 

DRCPT 

DUES 

DRIS 

DRMS 

DRS 

DS 

DSAA 

DSACS 

DSARC 

DSCS 

DSETS 

DS/GS 

DSMC 

DSN 

DSNAA 

DSREDS 

DSS 

DSSP 

DSWS 

DT 

DT/OT II 

UTPG 

DTRDC 

DTSS 

DVAL 

DVT 

DWASP 



DOD Small Arms Serialization Program 

Department of Energy 

Directors of Information Management 

Director of Logistics 

Director of Military Support 

Days of Supply 

Department of Transportation 

Defense Priorities and Allocations Systems 

Department of Project Management 

Defense Priorities System 

Design Review and Acceptance Groups 

Directorate for Personnel, Training and Force 

Development 
DARCOM Readiness Evaluation System 
Defense Regional Interservice Support 
Discrepancy Report Monitoring System 
Deficiency Reporting System 
Direct Support 

Defense Security Assistance Agency 
Defense Standard Ammunition Computer System 
Defense Systems Acquisition Review Council 
Defense Satellite Communications Systems 
Direct Support Electrical Test Set 
Direct Support/General Support 
Defense Systems Management College 
Defense Switch Network 

Defense Switchboard Network Access Area 
Digital Storage and Retrieval Engineering Data System 
Direct Support System 

Defense Standardization and Specification Program 
Division Support Weapons System 
Development Test 

Design Test and Operational Tests 
Defense Technology and Procurement Group 
David Taylor R6dJ Center 
Digital Topographic Support System 
Data Link Vulnerability Analysis 
Design Verifications Testing 
DOD Standard Warehousing and Shipping Automated System 



EA 

EAC 

EARA 

ECCCS 

EC1L 

EC1P 

ECM 

ECP 



Economic Analysis 

Echelon Above Corps 

Equipment Authorization Review Activity 

European Command and Control Considerations Systems 

Exercise Critical Items List 

Energy Conservation Investment Program 

Electronic Countermeasures 

Engineering Change Proposal 



348 



ED 

EDC 

EDCA 

EDCNM 

EDM 

EDT 

EEAP 

EELS 

EDT 

EDT 

EEO 

EF 

EGWFS 

EHF 

EIC 

EIR 

E1S 

EIS 

EISN 

EL 

ELINT 

EMI 

EMP 

EMRRS 

EO 

EOD 

EOTF 

EOH 

E2 PROM 

EOSO 

EPA 

EPIS 

EQD 

ER 

ERADCOM 

ERG 

ERP 

ERPSEL 

ERS 

ESD 

ESM 

ESSS 

ESTIMATE 

ETAS 
ETDL 
ETF 
ETS 



Engineering Development 

Eastern Distribution Center 

Executive Director for Conventional Ammunition 

Executive Director for Chemical and Nuclear Matters 

Engineering Development Model 

Engineering Design Test 

Energy Engineering Analysis Program, 

Environmental Enclosure Laboratory System 

Engineering Development Test 

Executive Director for TMDE 

hqual Employment Office 

Essential Force 

Essential General War Functions Statements 

Extremely High Frequency 

End Item Code 

Equipment Improvement Recommendations 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Executive Information System 

Experimental Integrated Switched Network 

Electroluminescent 

Electronic Intelligence 

Electro-Magnetic Interface 

Electromagnetic Pulse 

Enhanced Materiel Readiness Reporting System 

Equal Opportunity 

Eastern Operations Division 

Electro-Optics Test Facility 

Equipment On Hand 

Electronically Erasable Programmable ROM 

Equal Opportunity Staff Officer 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Environmental Projects Information System 

Environmental Quality Division 

Enhanced Radiation 

US Army Electronics Research and Development Command 

Equipment Readiness Code 

Environmental Restoration Program 

Essential Repair Parts Stockage Lists 

Emergency Relocation Site 

Electrostatic Discharges 

Electronic Support Measure 

External Stores Support System 

Estimation of Shortfalls in Theater Intermediate 

Maintenance for AMC TAA Evaluation 
Elevated Target Acquisition System 
Electronic Technology and Devices Laboratory 
Electronic Test Facility 
European Troop Strength 



349 



ETSSC 

EUSA 
EW 
EWL 
EXCAP 



US Army Electronic Research and Development Command, 

Tactical Software Center 
Eighth US Army 
Electronic Warfare 
Electronic Warfare Laboratory 
Exercise Capability Program 



FAA 

FAA 

FAASV 

FAB 

FABS 

FACC 

FAO 

FAR 

FAS CAM 

FAS IS 

FAT 

FAT-C 

FATDS 

FATMT 

FCC 

FCG 

FCSCWSL 

FDE 

FDMA 

FDTE 

FEDC 

FEP 

FFMIP 

FFP 

FFTS 

FG 

FtiMA 

FICS 

FIST uMU 

FISTV 

FLIR 

FM 

FMC 

FMIP 

FMMC 

FMO 

FMS 

FhSA 

FN 

FOD 



Foreign Assistance Act 

Functional Area Assessment 

Field Artillery Ammunition Support Vehicle 

Field Artillery Battery 

FMS Accounting and Billing System 

Ford Aerospace Communications Center 

Finance and Accounting Offices 

Federal Acquisition Regulation 

Family of Air Scatterable Mines 

Field Artillery Systems Independent Assessment 

First Article Test 

First Article Test-Contractor 

Field Artillery Tactical Data Systems 

Field Artillery Turret Maintenance Trainer 

Family Child Care 

Functional Coordinating Group 

Fire Control and Small Caliber Weapon Systems 

Laboratory 
Force Development Evaluation 
Frequency Division Multiple Access 
Force Development Testing and Experiments 
Field Exercise Data Collection 
Front-End Planning 

FMS Financial Management Improvement Program 
Firm Fixed Price 

Freight Forwarded Tracking System 
Field Grade 

Family Housing Management Account 
FMS Integrated Control System 
Fire Support Team Digital Message Device 
Fire Support Team Vehicle 
Forward-Looking Infrared 
Field Manual 
Fully Mission Capable 

Financial Management Improvement Program 
Force Modernization Management Course 
Force Modernization Office 
Foreign Military Sales 
Foreign Military Sales Act 
Fabrique Natiouale 
Foreign Object Damage 



350 



FOE 
FOG-M 
FOKSCOM 
FOTS-LH 

FPA 

FPI 

FPI 

FPIF 

FPO 

FRA 

FRET 

FRG 

FSB 

FSD 

FSED 

FSS 

FST 

FSTC 

FTP 

FIX 

FTX 

FU 

FUE 

FUED 

FVS 

FY 

FYDP 



Foliow-on Evaluation 

Fiber Optic Guided Missile 

US Army Forces Command 

Fiber Optics Transmission System - Long Haul 

Functional Process Assessment 

Federal Prison Industries 

Fixed Price Incentive 

Fixed Price Incentive Firm 

Field Placement Office 

Funded Reimbursable Authority 

Fielding Requirements 

Federal Republic of Germany 

Forward Support Battalions 

Full-Scale Development 

Full-Scale Engineering Development 

Fire Support System 

Fire Support Terminal 

Foreign Science and Technology Center 

Full Time Permanent 

Fielded Tactical Exercise 

Field Training Exercise 

First Unit 

First Unit Equipped 

First Unit Equipped Date 

Fighting Vehicle System 

Fiscal Year 

Five-Year Development Plan 



GAF 

GLA 

GLLD 

GAI 

GAO 

GCS 

GDT 

GFM 

GLD 

GLLD 

GMPA 

GO 

GO/SES 

GOCO 

GOE 

GOG 

GOI 

GO I 

GON 

GOS 



German Air Force 

General Ledger by Mission 

Ground Laser Locator Designator 

Gordano Associates Incorporated 

Government Accounting Office 

Ground Control Station 

Ground Data Terminal 

Government Furnished Materiel 

Ground Laser Designator 

Ground Laser Locator Designator 

US Army General Materiel and Petroleum Activity 

General Officer 

General Officer/Senior Executive Service 

Government-Owned Contractor-Operated 

Government of El Salvador 

Government of Greece 

Government of India 

Government of Iran 

Government of Netherlands 

Government of Switzerland 



351 



GOSC 

GPETE 

GPO 

GPS 

GR-GS 

GS 

GSA 

GSE 

GUFS 

G/VLLD 



General Officer Steering Coaiinittee 

General Purpose Electronic Test Equipment 

Government Printing Office 

Global Positioning System 

Guardrail Common Sensor 

General Support 

General Services Administration 

Ground Support Equipment 

Gunfire Simulator 

Ground/Vehicle Laser Locator Designator 



HA 

HAAP 

HAB 

HAG 

HAC 

HACS&I 

HASC 

HBCU 

HCA 

HCAME 

HDL 

HE 

HEDP 

HEDS 

HE I 

HEL 

HEL1P 

HELP 

HEM 

HE MAT 

HEMTT 

HET 

HF 

HFDF-R 

HFE 

HHA 

HHB 

HHG 

HHS 

HIP 

HMMPV 

HMMWV 

hMX 

HNS 

HgCPO 

HQDA 



Hellenic Army 

Holston Army Ammunition Plant 

Heavy Assault Bridge 

House Armed Services Subcommittee on Appropriations 

Hughes Aircraft Corporation 

House Appropriations Committee Surveys and 

Investigations 
House Armed Services Committee 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities 
Head of Contracting Activity 
Hospital Corporation of America, Mideast 
Harry Diamond Laboratories 
High Explosive 
High Explosive Dual Purpose 
High Endoatmospheric Defense System 
Highly Explosive Incendiary 
Human Engineering Laboratory 
Hawk European Limited Improvement Program 
Howitzer Extended Life Program 
Heavy Equipment Maintenance 
Heavy Expanded Mobility Ammunition Trailer 
Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck 
Heavy Equipment Transporter 
High Frequency 

High Frequency Direction Finder - Rear 
Human Factors Engineering 
Health Hazard Assessment 
Headquarters and Headquarters Battery 
Headquarters and Headquarters Company 
Health and Human Services 
Howitzer Improvement Program 
High Mobility Multi-Purpose Vehicle 
High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle 
High Melt Explosive 
Host Nation Support 

Headquarters Civilian Personnel Office 
Headquarters, Department of the Army 



352 



HTLD 

HTMD 

HWAAP 

HWM 

HWSA 

Hz 



High Technology Light Division 
High Technology Motorized Division 
Hawthorne Army Ammunition Plant 
Hazardous Waste Material 
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments 
Hertz 



IC 

1CAMP 

ICAP 

ICAPP 

ICE 

ICF 

ICL 

ICM 

1C0Z 

1CP 

1CUZ 

ID 

91D 

1EMS 

I/EW 

IFF 

I/FOA 

IFTE 

IGRV 

IOC 

IICA 

ILIF 

ILS 

ILSP 

IMA 

IMDSO 

IME 

IMET 

IMP 

INSCOM 

IOC 

IP 

IFF 

IPIC 

IPO 

IPPL 

IPR 

IPT 

IPT-G 

IRAC 

IR&D 



Intermediate Command 

Integrated Conventional Ammunition Maintenance Plan 

Integrated Conventional Ammunition Producers 

Integrated Conventional Ammunition Procurement Plan 

Independent Cost Estimates 

Internal Calibration Facilities 

Internal Calibration Laboratory 

Improved Conventional Munitions 

Installation Compatible Use Zone 

Inventory Control Point 

Installation Compatible Use Zone 

Infantry Division 

9th Infantry Division 

Installation Equipment Management System 

Intelligence/Electronic Warfare 

Identification Friend or Foe 

Installation and Activity/Field 

Intermediate Forward Test Equipment 

Improved Guardrail V 

Initial Operational Capability 

Intensive In-Plant Cost Analysis 

International Logistics Information File 

Integrated Logistics Support 

Integrated Logistics Support Plan 

Intelligence Materiel Activity 

Intelligence Materiel Development Support Office 

International Materiel Evaluation 

International Military Education and Training 

Information Management Plan 

Intelligence Security Command 

Initial Operational Capability 

Improved Performance 

Initial Production Facilities 

Implementation of Program Integration Capabilities 

Industrial Preparedness Operations 

Industrial Preparedness Planning List 

In-Process Review 

Initial Production Testing 

Initial Production Test-Government 

Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee 

Independent Research and Development 



353 



IkO 

ISA 

1SAFS 

ISC 

ISO 

ISP 

ISS 

ITC 

ITPF 

ITV 



Inventory Research Office 

lnterservice Support Agreement 

Integrated Safing, Arming, Firing Set 

Information Systems Command 

International Standardization Organization 

Information Systems Plan 

Information Supply System 

Instructor Training Course 

Individual Tank Precision Fire 

Improved TOW Vehicle 



J AC ADS 
JATF 
J ATM 
JCAH 
J CAP 
JCAP/CG 

JCMC 

JCS 

JDMAG 

JEDS 

JICA 

JIRSG 

JLC 

J OAF 

JOPS 

JP-AT 

JPCG 

JP1WG 

JR 

JRSC 

JSDF 

JSOR 

J -STARS 

JTA 

JTACMS 

JTEG 

JTG 

JTIDS 

JTWG 

JUSMAT 

JUSMG 



Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System 

Johnston Island Assessment Task Force 

Joint Anti-Tactical Missile 

Joint Commission on Accreditation of hospitals 

Joint Conventional Ammunition Program 

Joint Conventional Ammunition Program Coordinating 

Group 
Joint Crisis Management Capability 
Joint Chiefs of Staff 

Joint Depot Maintenance Advisory Group 
Jet Engine Decontamination System 
Johnston Island Chemical Activity 
Joint Inter-Service Resource Study Group 
Joint Logistics Commanders 
Joint Oil Analysis Program 
Joint Operations Planning System 
Joint Panel on Automatic Testing 
Joint Packaging Coordinating Group 
Joint Physical Inventory Working Group 
Joint Review 

Jam Resistant Secure Communications 
Japan Self Defense Force 
Joint Services Operational Requirement 
Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System 
Joint Table of Allowances 
Joint Tactical Missile System 
Joint Technology Exchange Group 
Joint Task Group 

Joint Tactical Information Distribution System 
Joint Test Working Group 

Joint US Military Mission for Aid to Turkey 
Joint US Military Group 



KAA 
KFtl 
kn 



khashm Al An 

King Fahad Hospital 

Knot 



354 



kVA 
kW 



Kilovolt Ampere 
kilowatt 



LAB 

LABCOM 

LAD 

LAF 

LAMP-H 

LAN 

LAO 

LAP 

LAP 

LAR 

LAKC-LX 

LASR 

LATP 

LAV 

LAW 

LBAD 

LBC 

LCA 

LCSE 

LOSS 

LCSS 

LCU 

LCWSL 

LEA 

LEAD 

LEIP 

LEM 

LEX-CAP 

LFATDS 

LHTEC 

LHX 

LIC 

LID 

LIN 

LMC 

LOA 

LOA 

LOGAMP 

LOG 

LOGCAP 

LOGEX 

LOGMARS 

LOGPLAN 



Light assault Bridge 

US Army Laboratory Command 

Logistics Assistance Details 

Lebanese Armed Forces 

Lighter, Amphibian, heavy Lift 

Local Area Networks 

Logistics Assistance Office 

Load, Assemble and Pack 

Logistics Assistance Program 

Logistic Assistance Representative 

Lighter, Amphibian, Resupply Cargo, 60-Ton 

Low Altitude Surveillance Radar 

Lima Army Tank Plant 

Light Armored Vehicle 

Light Assault Weapon 

Lexington-Bluegrass Army Depot 

Logistics Base Command 

Logistic Control Activity 

Life Cycle Support and Engineering 

Land Combat Support System 

Life Cycle Software Support 

Landing Craft Utility 

Large Caliber Weapon System Laboratory 

Logistics Evaluation Agency 

Letterkenny Army Depot 

Laboratory Effectiveness Improvement Program 

Light Equipment Maintenance 

Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity Community Action 

Plan 
Lightweight Field Artillery Tactical Data System 
Light Helicopter Turbine Engine Company 
Light Helicopter Experimental 
Low Intensity Conflict 
Light Infantry Division 
Line Item Number 
Logistics Management Center 
Letter of Agreement 
Letter of Offer and Acceptance 
Logistics and Acquisition Management Program 
Logistics 

Logistics Civilian Augmented Program 
Logistical Exercises 
Logistics Applications of Automated Marking and Reading 

Symbols 
Logistics Systems Plan 



355 



LOG R&D 

LOGWP 

LOI 

LOO 

LOR 

LOTA 

LP 

LRFBS 

LRIP 

LRRDAP 

LRU 

LSB 

LSI 

LSA 

LSAO 

LSPR 

LSRC 

LSSA 

LSV 

LTG 

LUPS 

MAAG 

MAC 

MAC I 

MACOM 

MADM 

MADP 

MAG 

MAM 

MAMP 

MAMS 

MANPRINT 

MAP 

MAP/GA 

MARC 

MARDIS 

MARED 

MAS 

MASS 

MBO 

MCA 

MCDEC 

MCF 

MCL 

MCPE 

MCS 



Logistics Research and Development 

Logistics Working Party 

Letter of Instruction 

Letter of Offer 

Levels of Repair 

Low Observable Technology and Application 

Limited Production 

Letter Requests for Bid Sample 

Limited Rate Initial Production 

Long Range Research, Development and Acquisition Plan 

Line Replaceable Unit 

Logistics Sustaining Base 

Large Scale Integrated 

Logistic Support Arrangement 

Logistics Systems Analysis Office 

Logistics Systems Program Review 

Logistics System Review Council 

Logistic Systems Support Activity/Agency 

Logistics Support Vessel 

Lieutenant General 

Logistics Unit Productivity Study Program 

Military Assistance Advisory Group 

Military Airlift Command 

Military Adapted Commercial Item 

Major Army Command 

Medium Atomic Demolition Munition 

Mission Area Development Plan 

Military Assistance Grant 

Materiel Acquisition Management 

Mission Area Materiel Plans 

Materiel and Maintenance Management 

Manpower and Personnel Integration 

Military Assistance Program 

Military Assistance Program/Grant Aid 

Manpower Allocation Requirements Criteria 

Modernized Army Research and Development Information 

System 
Materiel Acquisition and Readiness Executive 

Development 
Military Agency for Standardization 
Managing Analytical Support Services 
Management-By -Objectives 
Military Construction, Army 

Marine Corps Development and Education Center 
Military Computer Family 
Mobile Chemical Laboratory 
Modular Collective Protection Equipment 
Maneuver Control System 



356 



M-Day 

MDE 

Non-MDE 

M-DEP 

MDMS 

MDW 

MEA 

MEA 

MENS 

MEO 

MEP 

MEP 

MEPS 

MEPSCaT 

MERADCOM 

MERDIP 

MET 

MFA 

MFP 

MFR 

MFWS 

MG 

MG 

MI 

MIA 

M1B 

MICNS 

M1C0M 

MICOS 

MILDEPS 

MILES 

MILPERCEN 

MILPO 

MILSBILLS 

MILSTAMP 

MIL-STD 

MIP 

MIRADCOM 

MIRCOM 

MIS 

MISMO 

MISPC 

MLR 

MLRS 



Mobilization Day 

Major Defense Equipment 

Non-Major Defense Equipment 

Management Decision Packages 

Maintenance Data Management System 

Military District of Washington 

Management Engineering Activity 

Mobilization and Emergency Actions 

Mission Essential Need Statement 

Most Efficient Organization 

Mobile Electric Power 

Mission Equipment Package 

Military Enlistment Processing Station 

Military Enlistment Physical Strength Capacity Test 

US Army Mobility Equipment Research and Development 

Command 
Materiel Excess, Redistribution and Disposal 

Improvement Program 
Maintenance Expenditure Limit 
Material Fielding Agreement 
Material Fielding Plan 
Memorandum for Record 
Multi-Function Workstation 
Machine Gun 
Major General 
Military Intelligence 
Missile Intelligence Agency 
Mechanized Infantry Battalion 

Modular Integrated Communication and Navigation System 
US Army Missile Command 
Management Information Control System 
Military Departments 

Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System 
US Army Military Personnel Center 
Military Personnel Office 
Military Standard Billing System 
Military Standards Transportation and Movement 

Procedures 
Military Standard 
Model Installation Program 

US Army Missile Research and Development Command 
US Army Missile Materiel Readiness Command 
Management Information Systems 

Maintenance Interservice Support Management Office 
Mechanized Infantry Squad Proficiency for Information 

Management 
Mobile Rail Loading Ramp 
Multiple Launch Rocket System 



357 



MLRS/TGW 

MMBF 

MMCA 

MMD 

MMS 

MMT 

MMT 

MOA 

MOBREM 

MOC 

MOS 

MOU 

MP 

MPG 

MPGS 

MPL 

MRC 

MRHS 

MRIS 

MRO 

MRSA 

MRWG 

MSC 

MSCS 

MSFCG 

MSFS 

MS -3 

MSTI 

MTDA 

MTMC 

MTOE 

M&TS 

MTST 

MTT 

MTT 

MUL 

MWO 

MWOFP 

MWR 

MYP 

MZAD 



Multiple Launch Rocket System/Terminal Guidance 

Warhead 
Mean Miles Between Failure 
Minor MCA 

Medical Management Division 
Multi-Machine Scheduler 
Manufacturing Methods and Technology 
Morse Mission Trainer 
Memorandum of Agreement 
Mobilization Requirement Model 
Management of Change 
Military Occupational Specialty 
Memorandum of Understanding 
Military Police 
Mobile Protected Gun 
Mobile Protected Gun System 
Mandatory Parts List 
Materiel Readiness Commands 
Materiel Requisition History File 
Modernization Resource Information Submission 
Materiel Release Order 
Materiel Readiness Support Activity 
Manpower Review Working Group 
Major Subordinate Command 
Multi-Service Communication System 
Manpower Systems Functional Coordination Group 
Maintenance Shop Floor System 
Manpower Staffing Standard System 
Manual SVIP/TRI-TAC Interface 

Modified Table of Distribution and Allowances 
Military Traffic Management Command 
Modification Table of Organization and Equipment 
Military and Technical Schools 
Mobile TMDE Support Team 
Materials Testing Technology 
Mobile Training Team 
Master Urgency List 
Modification Work Order 
Modification Work Orders Fielding Plan 
Morale, Welfare and Recreation 
Multiyear Procurement 
Mainz Army Depot 



NAF 

NAGE 

NAIF 

NA1RA 

NAMSA 



Nonappropriated Fund 

NATO Air Defense Group Environment 

Non-Army Industrial Fund 

Nuclear Accident/Incident Response and Assistance 

NATO Maintenance and Supply Activity 



358 



NATO 

NAMSO 

NATPATMO 

NAVCON 

NAVMAT 

NBC 

NC 

NCAD 

NCO 

NDI 

NDP 

NDT 

NEPA 

NET 

NETP 

NGMS 

NIB 

NIP 

NISH 

NLAB 

NMCS 

NMI 

NMI 

NOSC 

NRDC 

NSA 

NSAP 

NSG 

NSIA 

NSN 

NTC 

NTI 

NTMO 

NUWAX 

NVD 

NVEOL 

NWC 

NWE 

NWFDFS 

NWSSC 

NWSSC 



North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

Nato Supply and Maintenance Organization 

NATO Patriot Management Office 

Navigation/Control Systems 

Navy Material 

Nuclear, Biological and Chemical 

Non Construction 

New Cumberland Army Depot 

Non-Commissioned Officer 

Non Developmental Item 

National Disclosure Policy 

Nondestructive Testing 

National Environmental Policy Act 

New Equipment Training 

New Equipment Training Plan 

National Guard Military Schools 

National Industries for the Blind 

Nonconsumable Item Program 

National Industries for the Severely Handicapped 

Natick Laboratories 

Not Mission Capable Due to Supply 

Nautical Mile 

Nuclear Metals, Inc. 

Naval Ocean Systems Command 

Natick. Research and Development Center 

National Security Agency 

Navy Science Assistance Program 

North-Seeking Gyrocompass 

National Security Industrial Association 

National Stock Number 

National Training Center 

New Thrust Initiative 

New Thrust Management Office 

Nuclear Weapons Accident Exercise 

Non-Violent Disablement 

Night Vision and Electro-Optics Laboratory 

Naval Weapons Center 

Nuclear Weapons Effects 

Nuclear Weapon Field Data Feedback System 

Naval Weapons Station/Successful Completion 

Nuclear Weapons System Safety Committee 



OAM 

OBCE 

OEDCNM 

ODC 



Office of Acquisition Management 

Operational Baseline Cost Estimate 

Office of the Executive Director for Chemical and 

Nuclear Matters 
Office of Defense Cooperation 



359 



ODCSCNM 

ODCSDKA 

ODCSLOG 
ODCSOPS 
ODCSPER 
ODCSRDA 

ODCSRM 
ODCSSM 

ODP 

OFF 

OFT 

OJCS 

OJT 

O&M 

OM 

OMA 

OMB 

OOC 

O&O 

OPA 

OPLAN 

OPh 

OPMS 

OPMNUC 

OPTADS 

OPR 

ORDA 

ORSA 

O&S 

OSD 

OSD PIF 

OSDV 

OSHA 

OST 

OT 

OT II 

OTLA 

OTS 

OUTS 



Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Chemical and 

Nuclear Matters 
Office, Chief of Staff for Development, Engineering 

and Acquisition 
Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics 
Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations 
Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel 
Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Research, 

Development and Acquisition 
Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Resources Management 
Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Supply, Maintenance 

and Transportation 
Officer Distribution Plan 
Officer 

Operational Feasibility Test 
Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
On the Job Training 
Operations and Maintenance 
Operation Maintenance 
Operations and Maintenance, Army 
Office of Management and Budget 
Out-of-Cycle 

Operational and Organizational 
Other Procurement Army 
Operational Plan 
Office of the Program Manager 
Officer Personnel Management System 
Office of the Project Manager for Nuclear Munitions 
Operations Tactical Data System 
Office of Primary Responsibility 
US Army Depot Activity Ober-Ramstadt 
Operations Research Systems Analysis 
Operating and Support 
Office of the Secretary of Defense 
Operating Strength Deviation Productivity Investment 

Funding 
Operating Strength Deviation 
Occupational Safety and Health Act 
Order Ship Time 
Operational Testing 
Operational Test II 

Operational Test and Evaluation Agency 
Off-the-Shelf 
Operational Unit Transportable System 



PI 

Pla 

PII 



Program Integration 
Pershing la 
Pershing II 



360 



PA Procurement Appropriation 

P&A Price and Availability 

PAA Procurement Appropriation, Army 

PAD POMCUS Authorization Document 

PADS Position and Azimuth Determining Systems 

PAOC Pollution Abatement Operations Center 

PARR Program Analysis and Resource Review 

PAS Price, Availability and Serviceability 

PBAC Program Budget Advisory Committee 

PBAS Program Budget Accounting System 

PBFCG Program and Budget Functional Coordination Group 

PBD Program Budget Decision 

PBG Program Budget Guidance 

PBX Plastic Bonded Explosive 

PCA Physical Configuration Audit 

PCB Printer Circuit Boards 

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl 

PCCS Program Cost Control System 

PCPC Productivity Center Planning Committee 

PCS Permanent Change of Station 

PDIP Program Decision Increment Package 

PEP Producibility Engineering Planning 

PDIP Program Decision Increment Package 

PDIR Program Development Implement Package 

PDO Property Disposal Officer 

PDL Program Design Language 

PECIP Productivity Enhancing Capital Investment Program 

PEP Producibility, Engineering and Planning 

PET Preventive Environmental Technology 

PETS Pin Electronics Test System 

PGS Productivity Gain Sharing 

PHS Petroleum Hoseline System 

PIF Productivity Investment Fund 

PIL Preferred Items List 

PIP Product Improvement Program 

PIPE Physical Inventory Program Enhancement 

PIT Product Improvement Testing 

PIVADS Product Improved Vulcan Air Defense System 

PIU Programmable Interface Unit 

PJHI PLRS/JTIDS Hybrid Interface 

PJS PLRS/JTIDS System 

PJSM Plan Job Scheduling Model 

PKO Peacekeeping Operations 

PLATO Personalized Learning and Training Opportunities 

PLL Prescribed Load List 

PLRS Position Location Reporting System 

PLRIS/TIDS Position Location Reporting System/Tactical 
Information Distribution System 



361 



PM Product Management 

PM AAH Project Manager Advanced Attack Helicopter 

PMAG Program Manager Advisory Group 

PM-AMS(R) Project Manager, for Army Management Structure 

PM,ATSS Product Manager, Automatic Test Support Systems 

Redesign 

PMJEG Performance Measurement Joint Executive Group 

PmGS Project Management Control System 

PM, LOTA PM, Low Observable Technology and Application 

PMP Program Management Plan 

PMMP Project Manager's Master Plan 

PM PBAS PM for Budget Accounting System 

PMR Program Management Review 

PMRS Performance Management and Recognition System 

PMSA Project Manager Materiel System Assessment 

PM, SANG PM, Saudi Arabian National Guard 

PMSC Preventive Maintenance and Checks and Balances 
PM STANF1NS PM for Standard Financial Systems 

PMTF Protective Mask Task Force 

PM TMDE Program Manager for Test, Measurement and Diagnostic 

Equipment 

PM TPS Product Manager, Test Program Sets 

PM TRADE Project Manager Training Devices 

PNVS Pilot Night Vision Sensor 

POC Point of Contact 

POD Plans and Operations Division 

POG Project Officers' Group 

POI Program of Instruction 

POL Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants 

POM Program Objective Memorandum 

POMCUS Prepositioning of Materiel Configured in Unit Sets 

POP Performed Oriented Packaging 

POP Pipeline Outfit, Petroleum 

PPBS Planning, Programming and Budgeting System 

PPBES Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution System 

PPL Programed Priority List 

PPP Package Processing Point 

PI Preplanned Product Improvement 

PQT-C Prototype Qualification Test - Contractor 

PQT-G Prototype Qualification Test - Government 

P&R Planning and Review 

PRAY Production Reliability Acceptance Testing 

PRB Performance Review Board 

PRIDE Productivity Kequired Improvements in the Decade of 

the Eighties 

PRIM Partially Restrained Internal Member 

PRON Procurement Request Order Number 

PKR Procurement Requirement and Review 



362 



PRR 

PSA 

PSCC 

PSCT 

PSE 

PSNAP 

PTFD 

PIP 

PUL 

PVT-C 

PWD 

PWRMS 



Production Readiness Review 

Personnel Support Agency 

Packing, Storage, and Containerization Center 

Product Specification Component Testing 

Physical Security Equipment 

PLRS Steerable Null Antenna Processor 

Personnel, Training and Force Development 

Part-Time Permanent 

Preconf igured Unit Load 

Production Verification Test - Contractor 

Procurement Work Directive 

Prepositioned War Reserve Materiel Stock 



Q Quarter 

QAR Quality Assurance Review 

QAT Quality Assurance Teams 

QC Quality Circles 

QDR/E1R Quality Deficiency Reports/Equipment Improvement 

Recommendations 
Qh Quartermaster 

QQPRI Qualitative and Quantitative Personnel Requirements 

QRIP Quick Return on Investment Program 

QRP Quick Reaction Procurement 

QWG/PIQA Quadripartite Working Group on Proofing, Inspection 

and Quality Assurance 



R&A 
RAC 
RAC 
RAM 
RAM-D 

RAP 

RAPIDS 

RAS 

RASA 

RATE 

RBL 

RCM 

RCRA 

RCS 

RDA 

RDE 

RDF 

RDF -A 

RDTE 

RDTEA 

RDX 



Review and Analysis 

Resource Action Committee 

Reliability Analysis Center 

Reliability, Availability and Maintainability 

Reliability, Availability, Maintainability - 

Durability 
Rocket Assist Projectile 

Rapid Army Priority Item Distribution System 
Remote Area Support 
Redstone Arsenal Support Activity 
Retention and Transfer Enhancement 
Recommended Buy List 
Reliability Centered Maintenance 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
Reporter Control System 
Research, Development and Acquisition 
Research, Development and Engineering 
Rapid Deployment Force 
Rapid Deployment Force - Army 
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation 
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Activities 
Research Development Explosive 



363 



REARM 

REGS 

REMBASS 

REP 

REQ VAL 

RESHAPE 

RETS 

RETS/AMTC 

RFP 

RFPT 

RIA 

RIDB 

RISE 

RITS 

RJAF 

RMA 

RMD 

RMEW 

RMES 

RM 3 

RMP 

RMSRC 

ROC 

ROD 

ROKA 

ROKIT 

ROM 

ROPS 

ROWPU 

RPSTS 

RPV 

RPV/SADARM 

RRAD 

RSAF 

RSI 

RSOP 

RTD 

RTL 

RVT 



Renovation of Armament Manufacturing 

Rear Echelon COMINT System 

Remotely Monitored Battlefield Sensor System 

Request for Proposal 

Requisition Validation 

Resource Self-Help Af fordability Planning Effort 

Remote Target System 

Remote Target System/Armor Moving Target Carrier 

Request for Proposal 

Roland Field Proficiency Trainer 

Rock Island Arsenal 

Readiness Integrated Data Base 

RAM Improvement of Selected Equipment 

Roland Institutional Trainers 

Royal Jordanian Air Force 

Rocky Mountain Arsenal 

Resource Management Division 

Resource Management Executive Workshops 

Resource Management Evaluation Surveys 

Remote Multi-Media Mode 

Reprogrammable Micro-Processor 

Resource Management Systems Review Committee 

Required Operational Capability 

Report of Discrepancy 

Republic of Korea Army 

Republic of Korea Indigenous Tank 

Read Only Memory 

Roll Over Protective Structures 

Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit 

Repair Parts and Special Tools 

Remotely Piloted Vehicle 

Remotely Piloted Vehicle/Sense and Destroy Armor 

Red River Army Depot 

Royal Saudi Air Force 

Rationalization, Standardization, and Interoperability 

Reconnaissance Selection and Occupation of Position 

Replacement Training Detachment 

Research and Technology Laboratory 

Reliability Verification Testing 



SA 

SA J 

SAAC 

SAAD 

SAC 

SAD ARM 

SADFAN 

SADM 



Security Assistance 

Security Assistance Automation, Army 

Security Assistance Accounting Center 

Sacramento Army Depot 

Strategic Air Command 

Sense and Destroy Armor 

Security Assistance Dedicated Facsimile Network 

Special Atomic Demolition Munition 



364 



SAFS 

SAG 

SAIL 

SAILS 

SALCS 

SALF 

SALFAAP 

SAMA 

SAMPAN 

SAMS 
SANG 
SANGTEP 

SAO 

SAR 

SASC 

SATCOMA 

SASDIM 

SATFA 

SAW 

SAW£ 

SBA 

SBIR 

SCCR 

SCCS-R 

SCOTT 

SCTS 

SCM 

SDAF 

SDC 

SDPI 

SDSC 

S&E 

SEAL 

SEAD 

SECDEF 

SECOMO 

SEE 

SELPO 

SEMA 

SEOS 

SES 

SESAME 

SES4WAR 

SHAD 



Safing, Arming and Fusing System 

Study Advisory Group 

Special Application Items List 

Standard Army Intermediate Level Supply System 

Saudi Arabian Logistics Control System 

Saudi Arabian Land Forces 

Saudi Arabian Land Forces Army Aviation Program 

Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency 

System for Automation of Materiel Plans for Army 

Materiel 
Standard Army Maintenance System 
Saudi Arabian National Guard 
Saudi Arabian National Guard Training and Evaluation 

Program 
Systems Analysis Offices 
Selected Activities Report 
Senate Armed Services Committee 
US Army Satellite Communication Agency 
Security Affairs Support Directorate for Information 

Management 
Security Assistance Training Field Activity 
Squad Automatic Weapon 
Simulated Area Weapons Effect 
Small Business Act 

Small Business Innovative Research Program 
Supplemental Contractor Cost Report 
Single Channel Collection Station - Rear 
Single Channel Objective Tactical Terminal 
System Components Test Station 
Self-Contained Munitions 
Special Defense Acquisition Fund 
Sample Data Collection 
System Decision Paper I 
Software Development and Support Center 
Scientific and Engineering 
Seneca Army Depot 
Suppression of Enemy Air Defense 
Secretary of Defense 
Software Engineering Cost Model 
Small Emplacement Excavator 
Secure Electronics Procurement Office 
Special Electronic Mission Aircraft 
SIGINT/EW Operator Simulator 
Senior Executive Service 

Selected Essential-Item for Availability Method 
Selected Essential Item Stockage for Availability 

Method for War 
Sharpe Army Depot 



365 



SHOKAD Short-kange Air Defense 

SHORAD C2 Short Range Defense Command and Control 

SHP Shaft Horse Power 

SIDPERS Standard Installation/Division Personnel System 

SIGINT/EW Signal Intelligence/Electronic Warfare 

SILT Stockpile Integrated Laboratory Tests 

SINCGARS Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio Subsystem 

SKO Sets, Kits and Outfits 

SLAC Support List Allowance Card 

SLAR Side Looking Airborne Radar 

SLASC US Army St. Louis Area Support Center 

SLEP Service Life Extension Program 

SLM Silhouette Layout Mats 

SLRP Strategic Long Range Plan 

SLRP Strategic Long Range Planning 

SMA Subject Matter Assessments 

SMART Supply and Maintenance Assessment and Review Team 

SMCA Single Manager for Conventional Ammunition 

SMCO Supply Maintenance Control Officer 

SMCP Supply and Maintenance Control Point 

SMT Supply, Maintenance and Transportation 

SMI Soldier-Machine Interface 

SNT Serial Number Tracking 

SOA Statement of Accord 

SOC Special Operations Center 

SOF Support of Operations Forces 

SOI Surety and Operational Inspection 

SOP Standing Operating Procedure 

SOQAS Statement of Quality and Support 

SORR System Operational Readiness Review 

SOTAS Stand-Off Target Acquisition/Attack System 

SOUTUCOM US Army Southern Command 

SOW Statement of Work 

SPA Special Priorities System 

SPAF Sudanese Peoples Armed Forces 

SPAL Simulator, Projectile Airburst Liquid 

SPIF Single Process-Integrated Files 

SPLL Self-Propelled Launcher/Loader 

SPRIN1 Spare Parts Review Initiatives 

SQI Skill Qualification Identifier 

SQT Skill Qualification Test 

SQT Software Qualification Test 

SKA Separate Reporting Activity 

SSA Security Support Activity 

SSA Service Support Activity 

SSA Supply Support Arrangements 

SSBO System Support Buy-Out 

SSEB Source Selection Evaluation Board 



366 



SSEIP 
SSI 

SSMA 

SSN 

SSSA 

STAGS 

STANAG 

STE 

STE/ICE 

STE-X 

STS 

SITE 

SUH 

SUSV 

SVGC 

SVIP 

SWHQ 

SWL 



Special Stockpile Engineering Investigation Program 

Specialty Skill Identifier 

Spread Spectrum Multiple Access 

Standard Stock Number 

Staffing Standards Support Activity 

Simulated Tank Anti-Armor Gunnery System 

Standardization Agreement 

Simplified Test Equipment 

Simplified Test Equipment for Internal Combustion 

Engine 
Simplified Test Equipment - Expandable 
Systems Technical Support 
Special Tools and Test Equipment 
Start-Up Handoff 
Small Unit Support Vehicle 
Secure Voice Graphic Conferencing 
Secure Voice Improvement Program 
Static War Headquarters 
Signals Warfare Laboratory 



TAA Total Acquisition Authority 

TAA Total Army Analysis 

TAADS The Army Authorization Document System 

TAAP The Army Apprenticeship Program 

TAC Tank Agency Checks 

TACCS Tactical Army Combat Service Support System 

TACFIRE Tactical Fire Direction System 

TACMIS Tactical Management Information System 

TACOM US Army Tank-Automotive Command 

TADS Target Acquisition Designation Sight 

TADS/PNVS Tactical Acquisition Designation System/Pilot Night 

Vision System 

TAEDP Total Army Equipment Distribution Program 

TAFT Technical Assistance Field Team 

TAG Technical Advisory Group 

TAG The Adjutant General 

TALWOG Technical and Logistics Work Group 

TAMMS The Army Maintenance Management System 

TAP The Army Plan 

TARADCOM US Army Tank -Automotive Research and Development 

Command 

TARCOM US Army Tank -Automotive Material Readiness Command 

TARP Theater Army Repair Program 

TAT Technical Assistance Team 

TB Technical Bulletin 

TC Type Classification 

TCA Tactical Cryptological Program 

TCAC Tactical Control and Analysis Center 



367 



TCATA 

TCC 

TCC 

TC-LP 

TCN 

TCN 

TDA 

TD/CMS 

TDMA 

TDP 

TDP 

TDS 

TEAD 

TECOM 

TELMOD 

TEMIS 

TEMOD 

TEMPER 

TFP 

TGW 

THE 

TIMS 

T1WG 

TLD 

TM 

TMAS 

TMUE 

TOA 

TOAD 

TOCAM 

TOE 

TOMT 

TOPS 

TOW 

TPA 

TPFDL 

TPS 

TPSIS 

TP/UMF 

TRACE -P 

TRACS 

TRACS 

TRADE 

TRADOC 

TRE 

TROSCOM 

TRW 

TSADS 



TRADOC Combined Arms Test Activity 

Technology Cooperation Committee 

Telecommunications Center 

Type Classification-Limited Production 

Territorial Command Network 

Third Country National 

Table of Distribution and Allowances 

Technical Data/Configuration Management System 

Time Division Multiple Access 

Technical Data Package 

Technical Development Plan 

Turret Drive System 

Toole Army Depot 

US Army Test and Evaluation Command 

Telephone Modernization 

TMDE Management Information System 

Test Equipment Modernization 

Tent, Extendable, Modular, Personnel 

Transportability Focal Point 

Terminal Guidance Warhead 

Transportable Helicopter Enclosure 

Technical Information Management System 

Test Integration Working Group 

Thermoluminescent Dosimetry 

Technical Manual 

Tank Main Armament Systems 

Test Measurement and Diagnostic Equipment 

Total Obligation Authority 

Tobyhanna Army Depot 

The Optimum Cost Avoidance Methodology 

Table of Organization and Equipment 

Turret Organizational Maintenance Trainer 

TACOM Order Placement System 

Tube-Launched, Optically-Tracked, Wire-Guided 

Total Package Approval 

Time Phased Force Development List 

Test Program Set 

TPS Information System 

Total Package/Unit Materiel Fielding 

Total Risk Assessing Cost Estimate for Production 

TACOM Reporting Acquisition Control System 

TMDE Recall and Control System 

Training Devices 

US Army Training and Doctrine Command 

Transient Radiation Effects 

US Army Troop Support Command 

Thompson, Rams, Wooldridge, Inc. 

Tri-Service Access Delay System 



368 



ISAM 

TSARCOM 

TSC 

TSCA 

TSCD 

TSG 

TSIR 

TSO 

TSTS 

TSWG 

TTS 

T 2 SS 

TWG 

TWGSS 

TWI 

TWVCSA 

TWVULDP 



Test Support Analysis Model 

US Army Troop Support and Aviation Materiel Readiness 

Command 
TMDE Support Center 
Toxic Substances Control Act 
Targeting Station Control and Display 
The Army Surgeon General 
Test Set Incident Report 
TMDE Support Operation 
Thermal System Test Set 
Training Support Work Group 
Tank Thermal Sight 
TOW and Improved TOW Sub-Systems 
Technical Working Group 
Tank Weapons Gunnery Simulator System 
Training With Industry 

Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Central Staging Activity 
Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Useful Life Developmental 

Program 



U-COFT Unit Conduct of Fire Trainer 

UCR Unit Cost Reports 

UDRE Under Secretary of Defense for Research and 

Engineering 

UF4 Green Salt 

UF6 Uranium Hexafloride 

UIC Unit Identification Code 

UICIO Unit Identification Code Information Officer 

UMAD Umatilla Army Depot 

UMMCA Unspecified Minor MCA 

UNITREF Unit Reporting System 

UPC Universal Product Code 

UPE Universal Pin Electronics 

USAAHS US Army Academy of health Science 

USAAPGISA US Army Aberdeen Proving Ground Installation Support 

Activity 

USACC US Army Communications Command 

USACSTA US Army Combat Systems Test Activity 

USACTA US Army Central TMDE Activity 

USACEEIA US Army Communications-Electronics Engineering 

Installation Agency 

USACSA US Army Communications Systems Agency 

USACTA US Army Central TMDE Activity 

USADACS US Army Defense Ammunition Center and School 

USAF US Air Force 

USAFAC US Army Finance and Accounting Center 

USAHTTbMSA US Army High Technology Test Bed Materiel Support 

Activity 



369 



USAIS US Army Intelligence School 

USAISC US Army Information Systems Command 

USAMICOM US Army Missile Command 

USAOTEA US Army Operational Test and Evaluation Agency 

USAREIM US Army kesearch Institute for Environmental Medicine 

USAREUR US Army Europe 

USARJ US Army Japan 

USASAC US Army Security Assistance Center 

USATHAMA US Army Toxic and Hazardous Materiel Agency 

USATSAC US Army TMDE Support Activity - CONUS 

USATSG US Army TMDE Support Group 

USCENCOM US Central Command 

USCINCCENT US Commander-in-Chief Central Command 

USCINCLANT US Commander-in-Chief Atlantic 

USCINCSO US Commander-in-Chief Southern Command 

USEUCOM US European Command 

USFJ US Forces Japan 

USG United States Government 

USMC US Marine Corps 

USMTF US Message Text Formed 

USMTM US Military Training Mission 

USN US Navy 

USPS US Postal Service 



V 

VCSA 

VDT 

VE 

VFDM1S 

VHS1C 

VIP 

VIS 

VISTA 

VLSI 

VM 

VSCDP 

VTAADS 



Volt 

Vice Chief of Staff, Army 

Video Display Terminal 

Value Engineering 

Vertical Force Development Management Information 

System 
Very high Speed Integration Circuit 
Very Important Person 
Vehicular Intercommunication System 
Very Intelligent Surveillance Target Acquisition 
Very Large Scale Integration 
Virtual Machine 

Visual System Component Development Program 
Vertical, The Army Authorization Documents System 



WADF 

WADS 

WARCO 

WEP 

WESTCOii 

WHS 

WO 

WORCS 

WRAP 



Western Area Demilitarization Facility 

Weapon Access Delay System 

Warranty Control Office 

War Emergency Plan 

US Western Command 

Warhead Systems 

Warrant Officer 

Work Ordering and Reporting Communications System 

War Reserve Automated Process 



370 



WRSA War Reserve Stock Allies 

WSMAT Weapon Systems Management Team 

WSMR White Sands Missile Range 

WSSM Weapon Systems Staff Manager 

WWMCCS Worldwide Military Command and Control System 

ZBB Zero Base Budgeting 



371 



DISTRIBUTION LIST 



SEPARATE UNITS AND ACTIVITIES UNDER HEADQUARTERS, AMC 

1 



US Army Central TMDE Activity 
ATTN: AMXCT-RM 
Lexington, KY 40511-5104 

US Army Automated Logistics 

Management Systems Actv 
ATTN: AMXAL-RAG 
P.O. Box 1578 
St. Louis, MO 03188-1578 

US AMC Catalog Data Activity 
New Cumberland Army Depot 
ATTN: AMXCA-PP 
New Cumberland, PA 17070-5010 

US AMC Field Office 
HQ AF Systems Command 
Andrews AFB 
Washington, DC 20334 

US AMC Field Safety Actv 

ATTN: AMX0S 

Charlestown, IN 47111-9669 

US AMC R&D Field Support Actv 
Ft. Hood, TX 76544 

US AMC Log Control Actv 
Presidio of San Francisco, CA 
94129 

US Army Materiel Readiness 

Support Actv 
ATTN: AMXMD-PM 
Lexington, KY 40511-5101 

US AMC QA Field Actv 
Lexington, KY 40507 

US Army Lexington-Blue Grass AD 
DESC0M PAFTA 
ATTN: AMSDS-Q-E-Q 
Lexington, KY 40511-5105 

US Army Equipment Authorizations 

Review Actv 
Alexandria, VA 22333-0001 



US Army Human Engineering Lab 

ATTN: SLCHE-D 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5001 

US Army Industrial Base Engineering Activity 

ATTN: AMXIB 

Rock Island, IL 61299-7260 

US Army LAO-CONUS 

ATTN: AMXLA-C0 (RM 224, Bldg. 210) 

Ft. McPherson, GA 30330-6000 

US Army LAO-Korea 
AP0 SF 96301 

US Army LAO-Pacific 

ATTN: AMXLA-P 

Ft. Shafter, HI 96858-5400 

US Army LA0-NG3 
Room 2E425 
Washington, DC 20310 

US Army LAO-TRADOC 

Ft. Monroe, VA 23651-5000 

US Army Logistics Management Ctr 

ATTN: AMXMC-P 

Ft. Lee, VA 23801-6056 

US Army Management Engineering Training Actv 

ATTN: AMXOM-DO 

Rock Island, IL 61299-7040 

HQ AMC -Europe 
ATTN: AMXEU-RA 
AP0 NY 09333-4747 

US Army Material Systems Analysis Actv 

ATTN: AMXSY-PM 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5071 

US Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency 
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010 



373 



MAJOR SUBORDINATE COMMANDS 



(AMCCOM) 

Commander 

US Army Armament, Munitions 

and Chemical Command 
ATTN: AMSMC-HO (R) 
Rock Island, IL 61299-6000 

(CECOM) 

Commander 

US Army Communications and 

Electronics Command 
ATTN: AMSEL-HL 
Ft. Monmouth, NJ 07703-5020 

(DESCOM) 

Commander 

US Army Depot Systems Command 

ATTN: AMSDS-SGS-CH 
Chambersburg, PA 17201-4170 

(LABCOM) 

Commander 

US Army Laboratory Command 

ATTN: AMSLC-PA 

2800 Powder Mill Road 

Adelphi, MD 20783-1145 

(MICOM) 

Commander 

US Army Missile Command 

ATTN: AMSMI-h 

Redscone Arsenal, AL 358y8-5ul0 



(TACOM) 
10 Commander 

US Army Tank Automotive Command 
ATTN : AMSTA-CH 
Warren, MI 48397-5000 

(TECOM) 
Commander 
1 Ub Army Test and Evaluation 
Command 
ATTN: AMSTE-PE-H 
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5055 

(AVSCOM) 
Commander 
1 US Army Aviation Systems Command 
ATTN:AMSAV-GSH 

Mart Building 
4300 Goodfellow Boulevard 
St. Louis, MO 63120-1798 

4 (TR0SC0M) 
Commander 

US Army Troop Support Command 
ATTN: AMSTR-GS 
4300 Goodfellow Boulevard 
St. Louis, MO 63120-1798 



PRODUCT /PROJECT MANAGERS (Reporting to HQ AMC) 



Defense Communications Systems 

(Army) 
Ft. Monmouth, NJ 07703 



Training Devices (TRADE), Naval Training 

Equipment Ctr 
Orlando, FL 32813 



Saudi Arabian National Guard 
AP0 NY 09038 



374 



HISTORICAL OFFICES 



Commandant 

Army War College 

ATTN: Classified Library 

Carlisle Barracks, PA 17013-5050 

US Army Center of Military History 
Pulaski Building 
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW 
Washington, DC 20314-0200 



US Army Forces Command 

ATTN: AFCS-MH (Military History Ofc) 

Ft. McPherson, GA 30330-6000 

US Army Military History Institute 
Carlisle Barracks, PA 17013-5008 

US Army Training and Doctrine Command 

ATTN: ATMH 

Ft. Monroe, VA 23651-5000 



HEADQUARTERS , AMC 



Chief of Staff 

Commanding General 

DCS, Development, Engineering and 

Acquisition 
DCS, Personnel 
DCS , Procurement 
DCS, Product Assurance and Test 
DCS, Production 
DCS, Readiness 
DCS, Readiness (AMCRE-H) 
DCS, Security Affairs Command 
DCS, Supply, Maintenance and 

Transportation 
DCS, Technology Planning and Management 
Deputy for Management and Analysis 
Executive Director for Conventional 

Ammunition 
Executive Director for Test, Measurement 

and Diagnostic Equipment 
Office, Command Counsel 
Office, Deputy CG for Research, 

Development and Acquisition 
Office, Equal Opportunity 
DCS, Information Management 
Office, Inspector General 
Office of Project Management 
Office, Small Business and 

Disadvantaged Business Utilization 
Protocol Office 
Public Affairs Office 
SANG Modernization Program 
Special Assistants - AMCJ0 

- AMCDRA 



375 



1 FEBRUARY 1985 
STAFF DIRECTORY 

THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL ORGANIZATIONAL CHART 



V 






HEADQUARTERS 
UNITED STATES ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND 

5001 EISENHOWER AVE., ALEXANDRIA, VA 22333-0001 





OFFICE OF DEPUTY CG FOR 






MATERIEL READINESS 


AMCDMR 


AsstDepforMR 


MR.E.GREINER 


10S06 49701 


AMCDMR 


Executive Officer 


COL B.G. BELCHER 


10S06 49702 


AMCDMR 


Task Group 


MR. S. K. RANDOL 


10S10 48895 


AMCDMR-TG 


Task Group 


LTC CD. HILL 


10S10 48895 


AMCDMR-TG 


Task Group 


MAJ(P)W.M.HENDON 


10S10 48895 


AMCDMR-TG 


Task Group 


LTC P. LUTHER 


10S10 48895 


AMCDMR-TG 



EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR TEST MEASUREMENT 

DIAGNOSTIC EQUIPMENT (TMDE) AMCTM 


Executive Director 

Deputy Executive Dir 
Executive Officer 
Administrative Officer 
Engineering Mgt Div 
Resources and Support 
Div 


LTG L.F.SKIBBIE 

MR. M. C. SANDUSKY 

LTC D.J. BUNGAY 

VACANT 

MR. R. DUBOIS 

MR. R. ERBER 


10S06 49700 AMCTM 

1S24 48084 AMCTM 
1S24 48085 AMCTM 
1S24 48090 AMCTM 
1S28 48096 AMCTM-E 

1S24 48095 AMCTM-S 





EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR 






CONVENTIONAL AMMUNITION 


AMXED 


"xecutive Director 


LTG L.F.SKIBBIE 


10S06 49700 


AMXED 


Deputy Executive 








Director 


MGF.HISSONG.JR. 


7S04 49540 


AMXED-D 


Executive Officer 


LTCW.QUINTRELL 


7S04 49540 


AMXED-D 


Admin Officer 


MRS. P. HONAKER 


7W20 49543 


AMXED-D 


Rqmts, Plans, Prog Div 


COLW. M.THOMPSON 
(USAF) 


7S04 45620 


AMXED-RP 


Acq Log Div 


CAPTR.LWERNSMAN 
(USN) 


7S04 49550 


AMXED-AL 





HQ AMC-EUROPE 


AMXEU 




Seckenheim, Germany, APO NY 09333 


Commander 


BG H.D.WALKER 


Mannheim Mil 81 34 


Deputy Commander 


MR.J.A.WESTMEYER 


Mannheim Mil 7207 


LOG Plans & Policy 


COLA. N.WARD III 


Mannheim Mil 6303 


Force MOD/ILS 


COLA. SWISHER 


Mannheim Mil 6598 


LOG Readiness 


COLJ.R.SNOWDEN 


Mannheim Mil 6594 


Dir for Resources 


MR. H. E. RUTLEDGE 


Mannheim Mil 61 94 


AMC-EUR Liaison Office MR. R. FITZSIMONS 


4N08 49647 AMXEU-E 



COMMANDING GENERAL 


GEN RICHARD H. THOMPSON 


10E08 


49625 


AMCCG 


Deputy CG for Research, 










Development and 










Acquisition 


LTG R.L. MOORE 


10N06 


49705 


AMCDRA 


Deputy CG for Materiel 










Readiness 


LTG L.F.SKIBBIE 


10S06 


49700 


AMCDMR 


Deputy for Management 










and Analysis 


MS. M.B.ACTON 


10E20 


49640 


AMCDMA 


Chief of Staff 


MG J.D.ROSS 


10E14viW49625-~ 


- AMCCS — 


Asst Chief of Staff 


COL R.J.FRAZIER.JR. 


10E14 


49639 


AMCACS 




xo 

Admin Asst 

Secretary 

Secretary 

Sr. Log Advisor 

Aide-de-camp 

Special Assistant 



COMMANDERS'S PERSONAL STAFF 



AMCCG 



CzOVnalumk (y\\ 

cw3j. r.kidder 
mrs. p. pagach 

VACANT 
MR. G. COX 
MAJ(P) R.WILLIAMS 
MR. H. HANDLER 



10E08 49625 AMCCG 

10E14 49626 AMCCG 
10E08 49626 AMCCG 
10E08 49753 AMCCG 
10C55 49630 AMCCG 
10E08 49626 AMCCG 
10W12 48692 AMCDRA 



-— HVlrjS 



c 



DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR 






SECURITY ASSISTANCE 




AMCDS 


DepCofS 


MG E.C. O'CONNOR 


5E22 


48380 


AMCDS 


AsstDepCofS 


MR. P. DONOVAN 


5E22 


48383 


AMCDS 


HQ US ARMY SECURITY ASSISTANCE CENTER 




Commander 


MG E.C. O'CONNOR 


5E22 


48380 


AMSAC 


Deputy 


MR. P. DONOVAN 


5E22 


48383 


AMSAC-M 


Asst Deputy for Plans 










&Mgt 


MR.R.LUM 


5E22 


48383 


AMSAC-M 


Chief of Staff 


COL J. F. WADE 


5E22 


48384 


AMSAC-S 


SGS 


CPTD.H.BARTHLE 


5S56 


48384 


AMSAC-SG 


Comptroller 


MR.C.H.KUDERNA 


5E16 


49738 


AMSAC-C 


Personnel and Admin Ofc 


VACANT 


5S56 


48395 


AMSAC-PA 


Directorate for Program 










Mgt 


COL L A. HERGENROEDER 


5N14 


49895 


AMSAC-MP 


Directorate for Mideast/ 










Africa/Americas 


COLG.A.LOSA 


5S22 


48451 


AMSAC-MM 


Directorate for Europe 


COL J. RICHARDS 


5S54 


48399 


AMSAC-ME 


Directorate for Asia 










Pacific 


COL P. THOMPSON 


5S10 


48371 


AMSAC-MA 


SA3 Project 


MR.D.MURTOMAKI 


5S43 


48424 


AMSAC-D 


Deputy for Operations 


COL G.WILSON 


AV 977-6800 


AMSAC-0 




NCADPA 









I DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR 




SUPPLY, MAINT & TRANSPORTATION 


AMCSM 


DepCofS 


MG J. S.WELCH 


8S06 


48175 


AMCSM 


AsstDepCofS 


MR. A. D. MILLS 


8S06 


48007 


AMCSM 


Executive Officer 


COL R. CLARK 


8S06 


48007 


AMCSM-X 


Support Operations 


COL J. W.LLOYD 


8W22 


48041 


AMCSM-S 


Operations & Evaluation 










Div 


MR.A.M.GUELCHER 


8W10 


49809 


AMCSM-SO 


Admin Officer 


MR. W. STEPHENS 


8N11 


49643 


AMCSM-SOP 


Plans & Projects Div 


COLD.SAARI 


8S44 


49445 


AMCSM-SP 


Automated Systems Div 


MR.G.PELLED 


9S18 


48345 


AMCSM-SA 


Maint Interservice Spt 










Mgt Ofc 


MR.J.L.LOWMAN 


8S49 


49397 


AMCSM-SI 


Asst DepCofS for 










Weapon Systems Mgt 


MR.L.D.SCHEUBLE(Act) 


8W18 


49801 


AMCSM-W 


Res&SyslntDiv 


COLR.J.SUHOSKY 


8W16 


49801 


AMCSM-WR 


Aviation & Missile Div 


COLG.E.LETHCOE.JR. 


7N28 


48806 


AMCSM-WA 


Ground Combat& 










Munitions Systems Div 


COL D. HITE 


7N16 


45544 


AMCSM-WG 


Cmd Control & Survl 










Spt Systems Div 


COLLLEASSEAR 


7N38 


48787 


AMCSM-WC 


Systems Integration Div 


MAJT. R.PRICKETT 


8N08 


49785 


AMCSM-WI 


Asst Dep CofS for Policy 










& Procedures 


MR. J. FLOYD 


8W18 


49800 


AMCSM-P 


Supply Div 


COL H.BROOKS 


8S08 


49271 


AMCSM-PS 


ILS Policy* Data Mgt 










Div 


COL M.E.PERRY 


5N42 


49759 


AMCSM-PL 


Maintenance Div 


COL J. BEST 


8S28 


48786 


AMCSM-PM 


Mod Mgt Div 


COLLP.HORTON 


8S15 


49436 


AMCSM-PF 



MISCELLANEOUS NUMBERS 




(See AMC-M 10- 


1 for Services not listed) 


Ambulance 


1S51 


9/911 




(During Duty Hours-Call Clinic) 




48296 




(After Duty Hours-Call Guard) 




9-577-1144 




AMC Education Center 


4S17 


48484 


ANPE-HRE-H 


AMC Operations Center (SDO) 


G2C60 


48586 


AMCOC 


Audio Visual Aids 


1N57 


46914 


AMCEN-OA-A 


Automation Security Ofc 


4N29 


45588 


AMXLS-LMR 


Battlefield Electromagnetic 








Environment Ofc 


G1C02 


48515 


AMSTE-CT-CE 


Bldg Admin, OSD 


1S34 


48099 


OSD 


Civilian Emp Health Svc (Clinic) 


1S51 


48296 




Classified Mailroom 


G2W07 


49585 


AMCAG-AH-M 


Conference Room Scheduling 


1N57 


48485 


AMCEN-OA-A 


Correspondence/Mail Distribution 


G2W07 


49594 


AMCAG-AH-M 


Credit Union 


Lobby 


48311 




Data Communications Services 


G3C08 


49000 


ASNC-BHA 


Driver Service 


G1S01 


48091 


AMCEN-OT 


Exec Dining Facility 


10N53 


49569 


AMCGS-GM 


Forms Management Officer, HQ 


G3C25 


48060 


AMCAG-AP-DE-F 


Graphics 


1N27 


48490 


AMCEN-OA-G 


Graphics Self-Service 


1C22 


48481 


AMCEN-OA-G 


Guard Office 


Lobby 


9-557-1144 




Learning Resource Center (LRC) 


1S17 


48214 


AMCPE-TD-LRC 


Library (Reference/Loan Publications) 


7S35 


45816 


AMCDMA-ML 


Library (Technical) 


7S35 


48152 


AMCDMA-ML 


Locator Service (Mil Pers) 


1E06 


48151 


AMCPE-MH 


Locator Service (Civ Pers) 


2C33 


49491 


AMCPE-CH-TS 


Message Center 


G3C20 


49009 


ASNC-BHA-0 


Nurse 


1S51 


48296 




Parking Tickets/Towing (PMI) 


Lobby 


823-3255 




Photographic Facility 


1C44 


48486 


USA-AVC 


Postal Operations Section 


G2W07 


48693 


AMCAG-AH-M 


Printing & Duplication 


G2C37 


49603 


AMCAG-AH-P 


Protocol Ofc 


10S50 


47853 


AMCGS-P 


Publications Control Officer, HQ 


G3C25 


48158 


AMCAG-AP-DE 


Editorial Section 


G3C25 


48060 


AMCAG-AP-DE 


Publications/Blank Forms Stockroom 


G3C19 


49663 


AMCAG-AP-DES 


Receptionist 


Lobby 


49191 




Records ADP/MGT 


G3C08 


45258 


AMCAG-AH-A 


Reservations & Tickets (Official) 


1E19 


48108 


USA-SCAF 


Secure Voice Services 


G3C20 


49014 


ASNC-BHA 


Security Office, HQ 


1N58 


49141 


AMCPE-SH 


Special Security Command AMC 


G2C63 


48986 


IASSG-AMC 


Spell Memorial Conference Room 


10N56 


48988 


AMCGS-PA 


Supply Stockroom (GSA) 


G2C31 


45885 


DSS-W 


Telecommunications Center (MSG) 


G3C24 


49010 


ASNC-BHA-0 


Telephone Communications Services 


G3W18 


49000 


AISC-BUSH HILL 


Top Secret Repository 


G2W09 


49590 


AMCAG-AH-R 


Travel CONUS 


1S50 


49006 


AMCAG-AH-T 


Travel OCON US 


1S46 


48116 AMCAG-AH-T 


Unclassified Mailroom 


G2W07 


49595 


AMCAG-AH-M 


USA Equip Auth Rev Actv 




AV356-2608 


AMXEA-C 


USA Special Proj Spt Actv 


7W06 


45480 


AMXSO 


USA SPSA Ft. Bragg LNO 




AV236-2539 


AMXSO-L 


USA DARISSA Lakehurst 




AV624-7688 


AMXSO-S 


USAISC-Bush Hill 


G3C08 


48061 


ANSC-BHA 


Westwood Mgt Ofc (Bldg Mgt) 


Lobby 


751-5590 





Published by 
Adjutant General 
US Army Materiel Command 
Telephone: 274-8158 
Autovon: 284-8158 
Commercial: 202-274 
Cable Address: CDRAMC ALEX VA 



SECRETARY OF THE GENERAL STAFF 


_. 


Secy General Staff 


LTC A. L. MITCHELL 10S60 49644 


AMCGS 


Dep Secy Gen Staff 


MAJ M.M.GETTYS 10S60 49645 


AMCGS 


Staff Action Control Off 


CPT B.J.ROSSOW 10S54 49646 


AMCGS 


Staff Action Control Off 


CPT L.A.PFLUKE 10S54 49659 


AMCGS 


Staff Action Control Off 


CPT J. D. FIELD 10S54 49645 


AMCGS .,a 
AMCGS WjJ*^ 


Staff Action Control Off 


CPT G.GORDON 10S54 49646 


Protocol Officer 


MRS. R. S. PALES 10S50 47853 


AMCGS-P 


Admin Officer 


MRS. P. J. BARNETT 10S55 49665 


AMCGS-A 



COMMAND SERGEANT MAJOR 


AMCCSM 


CSMW.B.TAPP.JR. 10E08 48257 

SSG H.PARK, Admin Asst 10E08 48257 


AMCCSM 

AMCCSM 




EXECUTIVE SERVICES 


AMCES 


Chief LTC T.L.SCHWEIDER 10S44 48588 

Staff Action Officer LT T.J.JOHNSTON 10S44 48588 


AMCES 

AMCES 





DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR 








RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AMCRM 




Dep CofS 


MG R.B.ADAMS 3N58 49131 AMCRM 






Asst Deputy CofS 


VACANT 3N58 49128 AMCRM 






Executive Officer 


COLJ.L.HAYGOOD 3N58 49130 AMCRM-X 






Admin Officer 


MRS.M.M.ELBON 3N57 49120 AMCRM-A 






Asst Dep CofS for 








Cost Analysis 


MR.R.O.WEIDENMULLER 3S34 49080 AMCRM-E 






Cost Analysis Div 


MR.R.O.WEIDENMULLER 3S34 49080 AMCRM-E 






Contract Cost 








Performance Div 


COLC.B.McGEACHY 9S36 48319 AMCRM-K 






Asst Dep CofS for 








Programs & Budget 


DR.H.C.PUSCHECK 4S22 48337 AMCRM-P 






Program Integration Div 


COLW. I. PARKS, JR. 4S22 48855 AMCRM-PI 






Budget Div 


COLL.J.SCHIANO 3E10 49039 AMCRM-PB 






HQ Budget Ofc 


MR.J.GOODWORTH 1S58 48442 AMCRM-PBH 






Program Budget* 








Funding Policy Div 


VACANT 3S50 49110 AMCRM-PP 






Force Development Div 


MR.G.E.TAGTMEYER 2E08 48215 AMCRM-MF 






HQ Manpower Ofc 


MR.P.ZEKAN 1S38 47744 AMCRM-MFH 






Mission & Organization Div MR. C.H.SCHIPP 4S18 48848 AMCRM-MO 






Productivity Management 








Div 


VACANT 3W06 48678 AMCRM-MP 






Finance & Accounting Div 


COLW.MIKKELSON 3S54 49231 AMCRM-F 






Internal Review & Audit 








Compliance Div 


MR. M.G.ARTHUR 3S26 49020 AMCRM-I 






Systems Management Div 


MR. A. ALLISON 3N44 45175 AMCRM-S 




ggjjj DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR 








PERSONNEL AMCPE 




DepCofS 


MGJ.G.BOATNER 2E14 48195 AMCPE 






AsstDepCofS 


MR.L.KNIAZ 2E14 48195 AMCPE 






Exec Officer 


LTCF.GRAUER 2E14 48195 AMCPE-X 






Admin Officer 


MRS. L PIERPOINT 2f18 48421 AMCPE-A 






ADCS-CivPers 


MR.A.GRIMMETT 2f^o 49415 AMCPE-C 






HQCPO 


MR. R.BROOKS 2S24 49427 AMCPE-CH 






Military Pers 


COL R. NITZSCHE 2S56 49325 AMCPE-M 






HQ Mil Pers Ofc 


CPTG.NIESS 1E06 48150 AMCPE-MH 






CmdReenlOfc 


SGMC. KILGORE 2S44 49103 AMCPE-ME 






Adjutant General 


COL V.CAMPBELL 1IJ12 48520 AMCAG 






Comm Life Sys Div 


MR.D. HELBIG(Act) 2N32 48981 AMCAG-C 






Admin Sys Div 


MR.E.NAZZARO(Act) G2C08 45259 AMCAG-A 






Library Prog Ofc 


MS. I.OMDAHL 7S35 48087 AMCAG-L 






Provost Marshal 


COLD. GARNER 10N44 49714 AMCPE-S 






HQ Security Ofc 


MS. M.COSBY 1W58 49141 AMCPE-SH 






Plans & Programs 


MRS. M.MARTIN 2N07 49474 AMCPE-P 




m i 


DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF 








ENGINEER amcen 




DepCofS 


COL L.H. SAVAGE 5V12 49041 AMCEN 






AsstDepCofS 


MR. J. W.BOUCHER 5W12 49041 AMCEN 






Plans & Programs Ofc 


LTC B.L. VINES 5*v18 49026 AMCEN-P 






Engineer Div 


COLJ.SIMONEAUX 5KV06 49390 AMCEN-E 






Environmental Quality 








Div 


MR.W.N.HASSELKUS 5S06 49389 AMCEN-A 






Services Div 


MR. D. W. DIETRICH 5W20 49273 AMCEN-S 






Housing Mgt Div 


MR.J.SLADE 5N10 48492 AMCEN-H 






HQ Support Div 


MR.G.BURFORD 1S52 49005 AMCEN-0 






Installations & Services 








Activity 


COLJ.C.STAEHLER AMXEN 






Rock Island, IL AV 793-5018 




HHBI 


DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR 




P 




■DCBOWdL INFORMATION MGT amcim 




Dep CofS 


MR. G. B. HOSLER 4E16 48626 AMCIM 






AsstDepCofS 


MR.J.A.SAUM 4E16 48626 AMCIM 






Executive Off 


LTC A. E.LAMBERT 4E16 48626 AMCIM-X 






Admin Off 


MRS. M. E. LAPOINTE 4N51 48310 AMCIM-A 






Mat Dev Sys Div 


MR. R. T. EDWARDS 4E08 48946 AMCIM-I 






Mat Rdn Sys Div 


MR. W.J. FERRARI 4N52 49140 AMCIM-E 






Resources Div 


MR.J.CIANFLONE 4E22 49480 AMCIM-T 




1 


HQMIS(LSSA)Div 


MR.S.McCUTCHEN 4N26 48686 AMXLS-LM 





OFFICE OF THE COMMAND COUNSEL 


AMCGC 1 


Command Counsel 


MR. B. M. BLAIR 


7E06 


48046 


AMCGC 


The Deputy Command 










Counsel 


MR.E.J.KORTE 


7E06 


48046 


AMCGC-P 


Deputy Command 










Counsel/Staff 










Judge Advocate 


COLJ.N.McCUNE 


7N56 


48003 


AMCGC-S 


Asst Command Counsel 


MR. A. T. LANE 


7E06 


48031 


AMCGC-L 


Executive Off 


MR.T.J.CAVEY.JR. 


7E06 


48047 


AMCGC-X 


Adversary Proceedings 










Div 


MR. R. I. BARDAVID 


7N48 


48080 


AMCGC-B 


Mil Law/Legal Svc Div 


COLJ.N.McCUNE 


7N56 


48003 


AMCGC-S 


Patent Law Div 


MR. A. T.LANE 


7E06 


48031 


AMCGC-L 


Procurement Law Div 


MR.E.J.KORTE 


7E06 


48046 


AMCGC-P 





DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF 








FOR READINESS 






AMCRE 


DepCofS 


BG D.R.WILLIAMSON 


5N58 


49719 


AMCRE 


AsstDepCofS 


MR. B. McDANIEL 


5N58 


49718 


AMCRE 


Executive Off 


LTC W.RUSSELL 


5N58 


49720 


AMCRE-X 


Admin Officer 


MRS.S.COMRAS 


5N56 


49460 


AMCRE-A 


Readiness Assistance 










Div 


COLG.CROWDER 


5N26 


49889 


AMCRE-R 


Concepts & Doctrine Div 


COLR.BEALE 


5E08 


49725 


AMCRE-C 


Military Plans & 










Operations Div 


COLW.J.LIEPIS 


5E11 


49738 


AMCRE-P 


Historical Office 


DR.D.BIRDSELL 


G1W1848191 


AMCRE-H 


Aviation Office 


COL W.B. WILDER 


AV 892-4341 


AMCRE-AV 




(St. Louis, MO) 











DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR 






PROCUREMENT & PRODUCTION 


AMCPP 




DepCofS 


MG D.W.STALLINGS 


9E06 


48159 


AMCPP 




AsstDepCofS 


MR. J. B.KING 


9E06 


48167 


AMCPP 




Executive Officer 


MAJ(P) D.L.GEORGE 


9E06 


48169 


AMCPP-X 




Plans & Admin Office 


MS.A.E.ARRINGTON 


9E19 


48170 


AMCPP-A 




Asst Dep CofS for Proc, 












Pol & Analysis 


MR. J. R. JURY 


9N56 


48262 


AMCPP-S 




Procurement Mgt Div 


COL J. P. SAFFRON 


9S48 


48350 


AMCPP-M 




Production & Industrial 












Preparedness Div 


COL J.C.DONDLINGER 


9E22 


48189 


AMCPP-I 




Competition Advocate/ 












Spare Parts Ofc 


LTC R.PONIKVAR 


9S46 


45685 


AMCPP-P 




SC 97 Proponent Ofc 


MAJ D.CARR 


9S46 


45685 


AMCPP-M 




TngW/lndustry 


MAJ R.BROWN 


9S46 


45685 


AMCPP-M 




Civ Procurement Career 












Program Office 


MR. J. F. WEST, III 


9C44 


49621 


AMCPP-C 



OFFICE OF THE CHAPLAIN 



AMCCH 



Staff Chaplain 

Chaplain 
Chaplain 



COLW.E.DANIELSON 

LTC C.H. ROLAND 
LTC R. F. BERGER 



10S29 49432 AMCCH 

10S29 49432 AMCCH 
10S29 49432 AMCCH 



OFFICE OF THE SURGEON 



AMCSG 



Surgeon 

Occupational Medicine 
Environmental Quality 
Medical Physics 
Medical Entomologist 
Industrial Hygienist 



COLT. NOWOSIWSKY, M.D. 

MAJT.WEYANDT.M.D. 
LTCG.L.DELANEY 
LTC C.E.DAY 
LTC M.SULLIVAN 
MR.J.S.SVALINA 



10S24 49470 AMCSG 

10S24 49470 AMCSG-O 
10S24 49470 AMCSG-S 
10S24 49470 AMCSG-R 
10S24 49470 AMCSG-E 
10S24 49470 AMCSG-I 



PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICE 



AMCPA 



Chief 

Associate Public Affairs 

Officer/Industry 

Relations 
Comd Info 

DARCOM News 

Inter/Change 
Media Relations 
Community Relations 



COLD.J.O'MALLEY 



MR. J. F.DONOVAN 
MR.E.V.DUGGAN 
MS. G. HARRELL 
MS.G.HARRELL 
MR.J.M.GORGAS 
MR. G.D.HILL 



10S35 48010 AMCPA 



10S35 48010 
10S35 48019 
7C55 49526 
7C55 49526 
10S35 48012 
10S35 45518 



AMCPA 

AMCPA-CI 

AMCPA-CI 

AMCPA-CI 

AMCPA-MR 

AMCPA-CR 



ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS OFFICE amcoe 



Chief 


LTCM.D.MIERAU 


1N20 


48532 


AMCOE 


OE Staff Officer 


MAJD.J.BUEHLER 


1N20 


48532 


AMCOE 


OE Staff Officer 


MR. R.A.KLAUS 


1N20 


48536 


AMCOE 


OE Staff Officer 


MS. B.M.LEE. 


1N20 


48536 


AMCOE 


OE Staff Officer 


MR. L. F. BASS 


1N20 


48536 


AMCOE 


Ops Rsch Analysis 


DR.W.L.WOODSMALL 


1N20 


48536 


AMCOE 





SAFETY OFFICE AMCSF 






Chief 


MR. L. L. MOTHERSBAUGH 10N36 49475 AMCSF 


Aviation 


MR. L.L.BECKER 10N36 49475 AMCSF-A 






Chemical 


MR. J. G.PERRY 10N41 49340 AMCSF-C 






Engineering 


MR.R.A.VASELICH 10N41 49340 AMCSF-E 






Health Physics 


MR.D.N.TARAS 10N41 49340 AMCSF-P 






Occupational Safety S 








Health 


MR. R. J. FATZ 10N36 49475 AMCSF-S 






Field Safety Activity 


MR. J. D. LLOYD AV366-741 5 AMXOS 
IAAP, Charlestown, IN 






SPECIAL ASSISTANTS 






Joint Activities 


COLE.P.WHITEHOUSE 10S18 49694 AMCJO 




Congressional Affairs 


MR. C.R.SMITH 10S32 48263 AMCLL 










SENIOR ADVISORS 


SA/USARNG 


COL D.E.WILSON 10S38 49683 AMCSA-NG 




SA/USA RESERVE 


COLC.L.JIMMO 10S38 49689 AMCSA-AR 






OFFICE OF SMALL & DISADVANTAGED 

BUSINESS UTILIZATION AMCSB 








Chief 


MR.F.C.BRDA 1C09 48185 AMCSB 




SADBU Specialist 


MR.J.K.BUTTERFIELD 1C09 48186 AMCSB 




SADBU Specialist 


MS.D.AGNEW 1C09 48185 AMCSB 




SADBU Specialist 


MR.J.R.FALKENHAM 1C09 48185 AMCSB 




LIAISON TO HEADQUARTERS, AMC 




Australia 


MAJ V.J. GIBBONS 10S44 49676 ALNO 




United Kingdom 


LTC E.H.CURPHEY 10S44 49675 BLNO 




Canada 


LTC E.EXLEY 10S44 49679 CLNO 




Germany 


LTC A.SIMBUERGER.Ph.D. 10S38 49684 GELNO 




Marine Corps 


MAJ R.C.LEPLEY 10S49 49673 AMCGS-F 




TRADOC/Logistics 






Center 


COL W.NORMAN 10S49 49678 AMCGS-L 




DESCOM 


MRS. D. B. STOKES 4N08 49647 AMCGS-D 




AMC-EUR 


MR. R. FITZSIMONS 4N08 49648 AMXEU-E 




FSTC 


MR. J. A. BURT 8N47 48853 AMXST-WLO 




AMC 


Point of Contact for all Documents and Visits is Security Office. 




AMC 


Security Support Activity, Atlanta, GA, AV 797-5543/44 

FROM HEADQUARTERS, AMC 




HQ.AF Systems 


Commercial 9-981-5181 




Command 


MR. J. H. PROCTOR AV 858-5181 AMXFA 




TCATA/Ft.Hood.TX 


LTC D. M. MacWILLIE AV 738-1228 AMXFS 







OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 


AMCIG I 




& AMC IG ACTIVITY 


AMXIG 


Inspector General 


COLC.HENNE.JR. 


1S12 48070 


AMCIG 


AM; INSPECTOR GENERAL ACTIVITY 




Chief 


JOLC.HENNE.JR. 


1S12 48070 


AMXIG 


Coordination & Control 








Division 


rfR.R.V MURPHY 


1S14 48072 


AMXIG-C 


Administrative Officer 


/IRS.T. R.KASTROBA 


1S14 48079 


AMXIG-A 


Investigations Division 


XX W.E.TRENT 


1S08 48064 


AMXIG-V 


Acquisition Inspection Div 


TC(P)J.D.COLLITON 


1W08 45744 


AMXIG-AQ 


Systems Inspection Div 


X)L D. W. MOE 


Ft Blv- 664-65 11 


AMXIG-S 


Logistics Inspection Div 


X>L J. L. BENNETT 


Ft BM- 664-6611 


AMXIG-L 



COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE AMCCE 

US ARMY INFORMATION SYSTEMS COMMAND-AMC ASNC 



Chief 


XJL D.E.WHITE 


3S10 


49050 


AMCCE 


Commander 


X)L D.E.WHITE 


3S10 


49050 


ASNC-C 


Dep Commander 


.TC H.E.FITZGERALD 


3S10 


49055 


ASNC-DC 


SGT Major 


5GM.D.TERRILL 


3W17 


49195 


ASNC-SM 


Operations Div 


/IR. A. SCHWARTZ 


3S19 


49073 


AMCCE-0 


Plans Div 


/IR.G. GENTILE 


3S06 


49063 


AMCCE-P 


Resources Div 


/IR. T.D.HOPE 


3S14 


49071 


AMCCE-R 


Communications Svc Div 


iPT J.M.SLUPIK 


G3C08 48061 


AMCCE-B 



OFFCE OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AMCEE 




Chief 


MR. G.L.JONES 10S15 49690 AMCEE 


EO Officer 


VIAJM. E.CAIN 2S40 49138 AMCEE 




AMC Fed Women's 






Prog Mgr 


VIS. G.GOMEZ-BENNETT 10S15 49691 AMCEE 




AMC Hispanic Emp 




Prog Mgr 


MR. R.A.MIRABAL 10S15 49692 AMCEE 


HQ Ofc of Equal 


Opportunity 


MR. R. D. SHANKS 7S44 49836 AMCEE-H 













OFFICE OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT 



AMCPM 



Chief 

Asst Chief 
Proj Mgt Officer 
Charters 
Charter Asst 
Policy 
Admin Officer 



lOLJ.J.VARGO.JR. 

m. R. L. MICHELLON 
rfAJ L.P.DEETER 
rfRS. B.M.DECATUR 
rfRS. M. S. HUBBARD 
rfR. L. R. ISRAEL 
t/IRS. K.A.WALKER 



10N18 49571 AMCPM 

10N18 49570 AMCPM 
10N18 49570 AMCPM 
10N19 49575 AMCPM 
10N19 49572 AMCPM 
10N19 49572 AMCPM 
10N18 49570 AMCPM 



DEFUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR 
MANJFACTURING TECHNOLOGY 



AMCMT 



Dep CofS 


DR. F.J. MICHEL 


9N08 


48298 


AMCMT 


Executive Asst 


MR. R. GALLAGHER 


9N08 


48298 


AMCMT 


Admin Off 


NRS. M. LILLY 


9N08 


48298 


AMCMT 


Budget Analyst 


MRS. T. SHIFFLETT 


9N08 


48288 


AMCMT 


Manufacturing Tech Div 


NR. F.J. MICHEL (Act) 


9N08 


48298 


AMCMT 


Industrial Projects 


NR. C. KIMZEY 


9N08 


48284 


AMCMT-M 


Vehicles/Other MACI 


NR.A. ELKINS 


9N08 


48285 


AMCMT-M 


Aviation/Missiles, MMT 


KR.G.SCHUCK 


9N08 


48288 


AMCMT-M 


Comm/Electronic, MMT 


NR. G.WAGNER 


9N08 


48289 


AMCMT-M 


Ammo/Weapons, MMT 


r)R.A.KOURCE(IBEA) 


9N08 


48289 


AMCMT-M 


Production Engineering D 


vflR.G.LANGFORD 


9N08 


48284 


AMCMT-P 


Prod Eng& Plan (PEP) 


NR. P.CHERNOFF 


9N08 


48285 


AMCMT-P 


Prod Readiness Rvw 










(PRR) 


MR. R. SPANGENBERG 


9N08 


48284 


AMCMT-P 


USA Prod Eng Spt Ofc 


JR. R. DELMAR 


9N08 


48284 


AMCMT-P 


Value Engineering 


BR. L. DeVAUGHN 


9N08 


48284 


AMCMT-P 


Mfg Val & Eval Analysis 


HR.J.KNOWLES 


9N08 


48284 


AMCMT-P 


Prod Eng Projects 


BR. G. LANGFORD (Act) 


9N08 


48284 


AMCMT-P 


Spec & Standards Div 


BR.J.KICAK 


9N18 


46699 


AMCMT-S 


Standardization 


BR. J. CROWLEY 


9N18 


46699 


AMCMT-S 


Parts Control 


BR. A. DeSANTOLO 


9N18 


46699 


AMCMT-S 


Data Management 


BR. A. CARR 


9N18 


46699 


AMCMT-S 


Configuration Mgt 


BR.J.HOLVOET 


9N18 


46699 


AMCMT-S 



DE'UTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR 
PRODUCT ASSURANCE & TESTING 



AMCQA 



Dep CofS 


MR.S.J.LORBER 


4W22 


48929 


AMCQA 


AsstDepCofS 


MR.J.A. LOCKERD 


4W22 


48925 


AMCQA 


Executive Asst 


MR.D.R.SCHIMMEL 


4S06 


48920 


AMCQA-X 


Admin Officer 


MS. L. SELZO 


4W20 


45448 


AMCQA-A 


System Eval & Test Div 


COL J. R.HILL 


4W06 


48122 


AMCQA-S 


Missile/Aviation 


MR. G. R. NEWPORT 


4W06 


48122 


AMCQA-SA 


Ground Combat/ 










Munitions 


LTCD.G.FITE 


4W06 


48122 


AMCQA-SG 


Cmd Control/Troop 










Support 


MR.W.GOOLEY 


4W06 


48122 


AMCQA-SC 


Test Policy/Evaluation 


MR. L.ST. JEAN 


4W06 


48122 


AMCQA-ST 


Product Quality Div 


MR.R.F.TINER 


4W20 


48899 


AMCQA-P 


Ammo Survl 


MR. D. W. FOULK 


4W08 


48889 


AMCQA-PA 


Supply & Maint 


MR, M. G. DONLEY 


4W08 


48890 


AMCQA-PD 


Procurement Policy 


MR. E.D.WALKER, JR. 


4W20 


48910 


AMCQA-PP 


Selected Prog Review 


MR.K.H.COONRADT 


4W20 


48904 


AMCQA-PR 


Engineering Div 


MR.K.P.LaSALA 


4S06 


48912 


AMCQA-E 


Methodology/Software 


MS.E.McGEHEE 


4S06 


48920 


AMCQA-ES 


Reliability 


VACANT 


4S06 


48919 


AMCQA-ER 


Maintainability 


MR. R. T. HWANG 


4S06 


48916 


AMCQA-EM 


Quality 


MR. H. L. LIGHT 


4S06 


48916 


AMCQA-EQ 


RSI/Standardization 


MR. I. SMART 


4S06 


48916 


AMCQA-EA 



DEPUTY FOR MGT & ANALYSIS 



AMCDMA 



Deputy for Mgt 
& Analysis 

Executive Officer 



MS. M.B.ACTON 

COLC. H.MITCHELL 



10E20 49640 AMCDMA 
10E20 49640 AMCDMA 



OFFICE OF DEPUTY CG FOR RESEARCH, 


DEVELOPMENT AND ACQUISITIONS amcdra 


Principal Asst Deputy 






tor MM 


MR. R. O. BLACK 


10N06 49709 AMCDRA 


Asst Deputy/Science & 






Technology 


DR. R. L. HALEY 


10N12 49560 AMCDRA-ST 


Asst Deputy for 






International Programs 


MR. B. R. DUNETZ 


9W14 48367 AMCIP 


Executive Off 


LTCW.B.HEGGIE.JR. 


10N06 49710 AMCDRA 


Asst Executive Off 


LTCR.J.LUNSFORD.JR. 


10N06 49710 AMCDRA 


Admin Off 


MRS. G. BARKER 


10W12 48692 AMCRDA 



OFFICE OF MGT & ANALYSIS amcdma-m 




Chief 


COL H.L. HARRISON 


4N24 


48676 AMCDMA-M 




Deputy Chief 


MR.R.G.SILVEY 


4N24 


48677 AMCDMA-M 




Exec Officer 


CPT(P) K. F. STEGGEMAN 


4N24 


48874 AMCDMA-M 




Analysis Div 


MR.W.FERRON 


7S28 


49265 AMCDMA-MA 




Res Eval Div 


MR. R.JAMESON 


4N17 


48155 AMCDMA-MR 




Rev & Analysis Div 


MR.W.CHAVET 


3N08 


49170 AMCDMA-MM 




Studies Mgt Div 


MR.R.VERBEKE 


4N16 


48038 AMCDMA-MS 




Tech Library 


MR. D. MONROE 


7S35 


48152 AMCDMA-ML 



DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR 


DEVELOPMENT, ENGINEERING & ACQUISITION AMCDE J 


Dep CofS 


MG R.D.HAMMOND 


8E08 


49490 AMCDE 


AsstDepCofS 


MR. D.L GRIFFIN 


8E08 


49493 AMCDE 


Asst Dep CofS-SOF 


COL A.A. DEPROSPERO 


7W06 


45480 AMCDE-F 


Executive Officer 


col m.e. Mckinley 


8E08 


49494 AMCDE-X 


Army RDA Magazine 


LTC D. G. KIRKPATRICK 


8S57 


48978 AMCDE-XM 


Opns&SptDiv 


LTC W. B.WEST 


8N55 


48537 AMCDE-0 


Admin Officer 


MS. B. Y. HEARN 


8N47 


48028 AMCDE-OP 


DepCofS-SysMgt 


MR. A. V. CAMPI 


8N54 


49850 AMCDE-S 


Health Haz Assess Ofc 


MAJ W.T.BROADWATER 


8N54 


49851 AMCDE-S 


Avn Sys Div 


COL J.S.DAVIS 


8N28 


48118 AMCDE-SA 


Msl&ADSysDiv 


COL A.F.GLEIM 


8N31 


49651 AMCDE-SD 


GndCbtSysDiv 


COL P.L.YEATS 


8N48 


49870 AMCDE-SG 


Spt Sys Div 


COL G.H. HEATH 


8N14 


49628 AMCDE-SS 


Mun Sys Div 


COL J. F. SALMON 


8N42 


48604 AMCDE-SM 


CCC & Survl Div 


COL H.L.PATRICK 


9C32 


49295 AMCDE-SC 


Bttfld Auto Mgt Div 


COL H.R.ARCHIBALD 


9N23 


49318 AMCDE-SB 


SGT York Spec Opns 


MR.S.V.BALINT 


G2C44 49576 AMCDE-SY 


Asst Dep CofS-Prog Mgt 


MR. R.D.GREENE 


8E14 


49848 AMCDE-P 


RDTE Pgm Bud Con 


COL G.W.ROSTINE 


8E14 


49860 AMCDE-PB 


Auto Info Div 


COL W.R.PETERS 


8N23 


45872 AMCDE-PA 


Pgm Integ Div 


COL J. G. LAND 


3W14 


49200 AMCDE-PI 


Asst Dep CofS-Acq Mgt 


VACANT 


8N22 


49811 AMCDE-A 


Acq Assess & Pol Div 


COL J.N.TRAGESSER 


8N22 


49811 AMCDE-AA 


Eng & Prod Pert Eval Div 


MR. A. H. NORDSTROM 


9S37 


48333 AMCDE-AC 



2 



DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR 






INTELLIGENCE 






AMCMI 


DepCofS 


COL B.H.DAVIS 


1E14 


48134 


AMCMI 


Dep to Dep CofS for 










Fgn Intel 


MR. C.H. HOWELL 


1E14 


48134 


AMCMI-F 


Fgn Intel Spt Div 


VACANT 


1E14 


48134 


AMCMI-FS 


Fgn Intel Rqmts & 










Prod Mgt Div 


MR. R.V. MILES 


1E14 


48134 


AMCMI-FR 


Asst Dep CofS for Security 


LTC S.R.HARRIS 


1E14 


48134 


AMCMI-S 


Security Div 


MR. B. KUTCH 


1E22 


49066 


AMCMI-SS 


Tech Loss Control Div 


MR. D. PORTER 


1E22 


49066 


AMCMI-ST 


Special Progs Div 


MR. R. E. SIMAK 


1E14 


48134 


AMCMI-SP 


Foreign Disclosure Ofc 


MRS. M.WITT 


Ft Gillem, GA 


AV 797-5543 






Z 30050-5000 


AMCMI-SF 







DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR 






INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS 




AMCIP 




DepCofS 


MR. B. R. DUNETZ 


9W14 


48367 


AMCIP 




AsstDepCofS 


COL B. P. MANDERVILLE, JR 


. 9W14 


48367 


AMCIP 




Canada & Europe Div 


MR. R.C.COOK 


9W14 


48367 


AMCIP-E 




North Atlantic 


MR.M.P.ZAPF 


9W14 


48367 


AMCIP-EN 




Central Europe 


LTCW. G.GILLESPIE 


9W14 


48367 


AMCIP-EC 




Southern Europe 


LTCW. G.GILLESPIE 


9W14 


48367 


AMCIP-ES 




Mid/FE & So Hemi Div 


MR.R.J.FACEY 


9S15 


48231 


AMCIP-M 




Middle East/ Africa 


MR. R. H. SCHLEGEL 


9S15 


48231 


AMCIP-M 




Asia/Pac/Lat Amer 


MR. B.W.GILLETTE 


9S15 


48231 


AMCIP-M 




Pol Prog StdAgr Div 


MR. M.Y.HARVEY (Act) 


9W15 


48554 


AMCIP-P 




Multi LatStdz 


MR. M.Y.HARVEY 


9W15 


48554 


AMCIP-P 




Pol/Plans & Prog 


MR. E. B. HOLLEY 


9W15 


48554 


AMCIP-P 




Commanders 












USARDSG-UK 


COLC.A.HODDER 


COMM 44-1-402-7185/7282 




USARDSG-GE 


COLJ.N.BERTELKAMP 


COMM 49-228-339-2732/2721 




USARDSG-CA 


COLC. G.RAMSEY 


AV 


627-8284 




USARDSG-AS 


LTCH.E.WARVARI 


COMM 61-62-653943 




NATO (MAS) 


COLJ.J.HEINLEIN.JR. 


COMM 32-2-513-3830 





DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR 


I 


TECHNOLOGY PLANNING & MANAGEMENT amcld 


DepCofS 


MR. R. VITALLI 


10N24 49561 


AMCLD 


Asst Dep CofS 


DR.GIESKE 


10N24 49561 


AMCLD 


AMCCOM 


DR. I. BARTKY 


10N30 49565 


AMCLD 


AVSCOM 


DR. W. COLLINGS 


10N25 48220 


AMCLD 


New Thrusts/Demo 


LTC J. ALEXANDER 


10N24 49565 


AMCLD 


BRDC 


DR. R. ODOM 


10N33 49579 


AMCLD 


MICOM/NLABS 


DR. R. GONANO 


10N30 49565 


AMCLD 


ARO/AMMRC/HEL 


DR. L. HAGAN 


10N30 49565 


AMCLD 


TACOM/TECOM 


DR. T. SMALL 


10N33 48220 


AMCLD 


CECOM 


MR. PREDHAM 


10N33 48372 


AMCLD 


ERADCOM/PM TRADE DR. J. STEKERT 


10N25 49566 


AMCLD 


IR&D Manager 


DR. K. BASTRESS 


10N09 48671 


AMCLD 


Prog Int/ADEA 


VACANT 


10N25 49565 


AMCLD 


Long Range Planning 


MR. B. BARTHOLOW 


10N33 48372 


AMCLD 


Tech Transfer 


MR.J.KOLB 


10N09 48671 


AMCLD 


Tri-SvclndlnfoCtr 








Army/Navy/Air Force 


MRS. D. MAHON 


8S58 48940 


AMCLD 



DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR 
CHEMICAL AND NUCLEAR MATTERS 


AMCCN 


DepCofS COL P. SZWARCKOP (Act) 10W16 49620 

Executive Officer LTC D.H.BROWN 10W16 49015 
Chief, Chemical Div LTC(P) R.H.TIMPF 10C09 49463 
Chief, Nuclear Div COL P. SZWARCKOP 10W18 45550 


AMCCN . 

AMCCN-X 
AMCCN-C 
AMCCN-N 



SANG MODERNIZATION PROGRAM 




BG P. R. SCHWARTZ, PM 

LTC R. S. LOWER, Chief, Wash Ofc 



5S32 
5S32 



49126 AMCPM-NG 

49126 AMCPM-NGW 



Staff Duty Officer — Rm G2C60 

Autovon 284-9223 

Commerical 202-274-9223 
Operations Center: Administrative: 274-8586/7 
Emergency: 274-8660 







— 






A 






rS 






<A-SA 






JQA-SG 






^MCQA-SC 






AMCQA-ST 




j 


AMCQA-P 




j9 


AMCqA-PA 




J90 


AMCQA-PD 




J91Q 


AMCQA-PP 




48904 


AMCQA-PB 




48912 


AMCQA-E 


I 


48920 


AMCQA-ES 


-6 


48919 


AMCQA-ER 


,06 


48916 


AMCQA-EM 


S06 


48916 


AMCQA-EQ 


4S06 


48916 AMCQA-EA 


4S06 


48920 


AMCQA-ED 


4S06 


48920 AMCQA-ET 


4W14 


48900 


AMCQA-EX 



15 SEPTEMBER 1985 

STAFF DIRECTORY 

THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL ORGANIZATIONAL CHART 




HEADQUARTERS 
UNITED STATES ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND 

5001 EISENHOWER AVE., ALEXANDRIA, VA 22333-0001 



OFFICE OF DEPUTY CG FOR 
MATERIEL READINESS 



AMCDMR 



AsstDepforMR 

Executive Officer 
Asst Exec Officer 
Asst Exec Officer 
Asst Exec Officer 
Asst Exec Officer 



MR E.GREINER 

COL R.SZYDLO 
LTC(P) E.LIPINSKI 
MR S.RANDOL 
MAJ W.PAINI 
MAJ G. POTTS 



10S06 49701 

10S06 49702 
10S10 48895 
10S10 48895 
10S10 48895 
10S10 48895 



AMCDMR 

AMCDMR 

AMCDMR-TG 

AMCDMR-TG 

AMCDMR-TG 

AMCDMR-TG 



KECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR TEST MEASUREMENT 

DIAGNOSTIC EQUIPMENT (TMDE) amctm 


Executive(i rector 

Deputy Exoutive Dir 
Executive (jficer 
Administrate Officer 
EngineerirjMgtDiv 
Resourceand Support 
Div 


LTG L.F.SKIBBIE 

MR R.DUBOIS (Act) 

VACANT 

MS B.QUACKENBUSH 

MR P. CHEN (Act) 

MR R.ERBER 


10S06 49700 AMCTM 

1S24 48084 AMCTM 
1S24 48085 AMCTM 
1S24 48090 AMCTM 
1S28 48096 AMCTM-E 

1S24 48095 AMCTM-S 






EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR 


AMXED 




CONVENTIONAL AMMUNITION 


Executive Director 


LTG L.F.SKIBBIE 10S06 49700 


AMXEO 


Deputy Executive 






Director 


BG G.P.BOWEN 7S04 49540 


AMXED-D 


Executive Officer 


CPT(P) D. R. REIDENBACH 7S04 49540 


AMXED-D 


Admin Officer 


MRS P.HONAKER 7W20 49543 


AMXED-D 


Rqmts, Plans, Prog Div 


COL W.M.THOMPSON 7S04 45620 
(USAF) 


AMXED-RP 


Acq Log Div 


CAPT A.G.CAMPBELL 7S04 49550 
(USN) 


AMXED-AL 



HQ AMC-EUROPE 



AMXEU 



Seckenheim, Germany, APO NY 09333-4747 



Commanler 
Deputy Ccnmander 
LOG Plani& Policy 
Force MO>/ILS 
LOG Assisance 
DirforResjurces 
AMC-EURJaison Office 



BG H.D.WALKER 

MR J.LLOWMAN 

COL L NELSON 

COL A.SWISHER 

COL W.PIFF 

MRS J.WASKO 

MRS M. QUACKENBUSH 



Mannheim Mil 81 34 

Mannheim Mil 7207 
Mannheim Mil 7431 
Mannheim Mil 6795 
Mannheim Mil 6594 
Mannheim Mil 61 94 
4N08 49647 AMXEU-E 



DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE 



AMCDS 



DepCofS 

AsstDepCofS 



MG 

MR 



E.C. O'CONNOR 

P. DONOVAN 



5E22 

5E22 



48380 

48383 



HQ US ARMY SECURITY ASSISTANCE CENTER 



Commander 

Deputy 

Asst Deputy 

Chief of Staff 

SGS 

Aide-de-camp 

Comptroller 

Personnel and Admin Ofc 

Directorate for Program 

Mgt 
Directorate for Mideast/ 

Africa 

Directorate for Europe 
Directorate for Asia/ 

Pacific/Americas 
SA3 Project 
Deputy for Operations 



MG E.C. O'CONNOR 

MR P.DONOVAN 

MR R.L.LUM 

COL J. F. WADE 

VACANT 

1LT(P) W.J.PAGE 

MR C.H.KUDERNA 

VACANT 

COL W.J.EDWARDS 

COL P.F.THOMPSON 
COL J. H. RICHARDS 

COL R.A.UDICK 
MR D. R. MURTOMAKI 
COL G.E.WILSON 
NCAD PA 



5E22 

5E22 
5E22 
5E22 
5E22 
5E22 
5E16 
5S56 



48380 

48383 
48383 
48384 
48384 
48380 
49688 
483S5 



AMCDS 

AMCDS 



AMSAC 

AMSAC-M 

AMSAC-M 

AMSAC-S 

AMSAC-SG 

AMSAC 

AMSAC-R 

AMSAC-SA 



5S10 48371 AMSAC-MP 



5S22 
5S54 



48451 AMSAC-MM 
48399 AMSAC-ME 



5N114 49895 AMSAC-MA 
5S27 48468 AMSAC-D 
AV 977-6800 AMSAC-0 



DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR 
SUPPLY, MAINTENANCE & TRANSPORTATION 



AMCSM 



DepCofS 

AsstDepCofS 

Executive Officer 

Asst Dep CofS for Support 

Operations 

Plans & Operations Div 
Admin Officer 
Personnel Officer 
Automated Systems 

Intgrn Div 
Mainlnterservice 

SptMgtDiv 
Asst Dep CofS for 

Weapon Systems Mgt 
Aviation & Missile 

Systems Div 
Cmd, Control, Surv& 

Spt Systems Div 
Ground Combat & 

Munitions Systems Div 
Force Mod Integration Div 
Vehicles Troop Spt 

Systems Div 
Materiel Dist Mgt Div 
Inventory Mgt Policy Div 
ILS&MaintDiv 
Depot Operations Div 



BG B.J.STALCUP 

MR A.D.MILLS 
LTC J.DAVIDSON 



MS 
MS 
MR 
MS 



M. L. PINKETT 
M.LPINKETT 
W. L. STEPHENS 
M.A.ARNOLD 



8S06 

8S06 
8S06 

8N08 
8N08 
8S09 
8N21 



48175 

48007 
48007 



AMCSM 

AMCSM 

AMCSM-X 



49785 AMCSM-S 
49 .'85 AMCSM-SO 
48/98 AMCSM-SOP 
49335 AMCSM-SOS 



MR G.PELLED 

MR L.W.BOEHM 

VACANT 

COL G.E.LETHCOE 

MR G.CSERI 

MR J. C.HILL (Act) 
COL LP.HORTON 

LTC(P) D.C.WADE 
COL H.L.BROOKS 
COL D.R.SAARI 
COL M.E.PERRY 
COL J. W. BEST 



7S11 49573 AMCSM-SA 

5N25 49880 AMCSM-SI 

8W18 49801 AMCSM-W 

7N28 48806 AMCSM-WA 

7S50 49840 AMCSM-WC 



7N16 
7S16 

7N38 
8S44 
8W16 
8S28 
9S12 



45533 
49546 

48787 
49487 
49801 
48786 
48245 



AMCSM-WG 
AMCSM-WI 

AMCSM-WS 

AMCSM-PD 

AMCSM-PI 

AMCSM-PL 

AMCSM-PO 



MISCELLANEOUS NUMBERS 


(See AMC-M 10-1 for Services not listed) 


Ambulance 


1S51 


9/911 


(During Duty Hours-Call Clinic) 




48296 


(After Duty Hours-Call Guard) 




9-577-1144 


AMC Education Center 


4S17 


48484 ANPE-HRE-H 


AMC Operations Center (SDO) 


G2C60 


48586 AMCOC 


Audio Visual Aids 


1N57 


46914 AMCIM-OA 


Automation Security Ofc 


4N45 


45588 AMXLS-LM 


Battlefield Electromagnetic 






Environment Ofc 


G1C02 


48515 AMSTE-CT-CE 


Bldg Admin, OSD 


1S34 


48099 OSD 


Civilian Emp Health Svc (Clinic) 


1S51 


48296 


Civ Pers Ofc (R&P) 


2S24 


49446 AMCPE-CH-RP 


Civ Pers Ofc (Tech Svcs) 






Processing & Info 


2C33 


49491 AMCPE-CH-TS 


Classified Mailroom 


G2W07 


49585 AMCIM-OM 


Conference Room Scheduling 


1N57 


48485 AMCIM-OA 


Correspondence/Mail Distribution 


G2W07 


49597 AMCIM-OM 


Credit Union 


Lobby 


48311 


Data Communications Services 


G3C08 


49000 ASNC-BHA-S 


Driver Service 


G1S01 


48091 AMCEN-OT 


Exec Dining Facility 


10N53 


49569 AMCGS-GM 


Forms Management Officer, HQ 


G3C25 


48060 AMCIM-OD-F 


Graphics 


1N27 


48491 AMCIM-OG 


Graphics Self-Service 


1C22 


48481 AMCIM-OG 


Guard Office 


Lobby 


9-557-1144 


Information 3ys Mgt Br 


G2C08 


45258 AMCIM-OI 


Learning Resource Center (LRC) 


1S17 


48214 AMCPE-TD-LRC 


Library (Reference/Loan Publications) 


7S35 


45816 AMCDMA-ML 


Library (Technical) 


7S35 


48152 AMCDMA-ML 


Locator Service (Mil Pers) 


1E06 


48151 AMCPE-MH 


Locator Service (Civ Pers) 


2C33 


49491 AMCPE-CH-TS 


LSSA 


4N26 


48686 AMXLS-LM 


Message Center 


G3C20 


49009 ASNC-BHA-0 


Nurse 


1S51 


48296 


Parking Tickets/Towing (PMI) 


Lobby 


823-3255 


Photographic Facility 


1C44 


48486 USA-AVC 


Postal Branch 


G2W07 


48693 AMCIM-OM 


Printing Branch 


G2C37 


49603 AMCIM-OP 


Protocol Ofc 


10S50 


47853 AMCPR 


Publications Control Officer, HQ 


G3C25 


48158 AMCIM-OD-A 


Editorial Section 


G3C25 


48060 AMCIM-OD-E 


Publications/Blank Forms Stockroom 


G3C19 


49663 AMCIM-OD-S 


Receptionist 


Lobby 


49191 


Reservations & Tickets (Official) 


1E19 


48108 USA-SCAF 


Secure Voice Services 


G3C20 


49009 ASNC-BHA-O 


Security Office, HQ 


1N58 


49141 AMCPE-SH 


Special Security Command AMC 


G2C63 


48986 IASSG-AMC 


Spell Memorial Conference Room 


10N56 


48988 AMCPR 


Supply Stockroom (GSA) 


G2C31 


45885 DSS-W 


Telecommunications Center (MSG) 


G3C20 


49009 ASNC-BHA-0 


Telephone Communications Services 


G3C08 


49000 ASNC-BHA-S 


Top Secret Repository 


G2W09 


49590 AMCAG-AH-R 


Travel CONUS 


1S50 


49006 AMCAG-AH-T 


Travel OCONUS 


1S46 


48116 AMCAG-AH-T 


Unclassified Mailroom 


G2W07 


49595 AMCIM-OM 


USA Equip Auth Rev Actv 




AV356-2608 AMXEA-C 


USA/SC Bush Hill 


G3C08 


48061 ASNC-BHA 


Westwood Mgt Ofc (Bldg Mgt) 


Lobby 


751-5590 



COMMANDING GENERAL GEN RICHARD H.THOMPSON 10E08 49625 AMCCG 

Deputy CG for Research, 

Development and 

Acquisition 
Deputy CG for Materiel 

Readiness 
Deputy for Management 

and Analysis 
Chief of Staff 
Asst Chief of Staff 



LTG R.L.MOORE 

LTG L. F. SKIBBIE 

MS M. B.ACTON 
MG J.D.ROSS 
COL B.R.CLARK 



10N06 


49705 


AMCDRA 


10S06 


49700 


AMCDMR 


10E20 


49640 


AMCDMA 


10E14 


49637 


AMCCS 


10E14 


49639 


AMCACS 



COMMANDER'S PERSONAL STAFF 



AMCCG 



XO 

Admin Asst 

Secretary 

Secretary 

Sr. Log Advisor 

Aide-de-camp 



COL J.D.MILLER 

CW3 J.R.KIDDER 
MRS P.PAGACH 
MRS J.RICHARDSON 
MR G.COX 
LTC R.BEAUCHAMP 



10E08 49625 AMCCG 

10E14 49626 AMCCG 
10E08 49626 AMCCG 
10E08 49753 AMCCG 
10C55 49630 AMCCG 
10E08 49626 AMCCG 



DEPUTY FOR MANAGEMENT & ANALYSIS amcdma 



Deputy for Mgt 
& Analysis 

Executive Officer 
Chief 
Sys Assessment 
Prog Ofc 



MS M.B.ACTON 

COL C.H.MITCHELL 



LTC(P) D.T.MORGAN 



10E20 49640 AMCDMA 

10E20 49640 AMCDMA 



7W11 45102 AMCDMA-P 



SECRETARY OF THE GENERAL STAFF 



AMCGS 



Secy General Staff 

Dep Secy Gen Staff 
Dep Secy Gen Staff 
Staff Action Control Off 
Staff Action Control Off 
Staff Action Control Off 
Staff Action Control Off 
Staff Action Control Off 
Admin Officer 



LTC A. L. MITCHELL 

MAJ K. F. STEGGEMAN 

VACANT 

MAJ R.L.ADAMS 

CPT B.J.ROSSOW 

CPT G.GORDON 

CPT LA.PFLUKE 

VACANT 

MRS P.J.BARNETT 





DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR 






RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 




AMCRM 


Dep CofS 


MG R.B.ADAMS 


3N58 


49131 


AMCRM 




Asst Deputy CofS 


MR M.C.SANDUSKY 


3N58 


49128 


AMCRM 




Executive Officer 


COL C.'SABIN 


3N58 


49130 


AMCRM-X 




Admin Officer 


MRS M.M.ELBON 


3N57 


49120 


AMCRM-A 




Asst Dep CofS for 












Cost Analysis 


MR R.O.WEIDENMULLER 


3S34 


49080 


AMCRM-E 




Cost Analysis Div 


MR R.O.WEIDENMULLER 


3S34 


49080 


AMCRM-E 




Contract Cost 












Performance Div 


COL C.B.McGEACHY 


9S36 


48319 


AMCRM-K 




Asst Dep CofS for. 












Programs & Budget 


MR H.C.PUSCHECK 


4S22 


48337 


AMCRM-P 




Program Integration Div 


COL W.I. PARKS, JR. 


4S30 


49112 


AMCRM-PI 




Budget Div 


MR E.J.HENLEY 


3E10 


49039 


AMCRM-PB 




HQ Budget Ofc 


MR J.GOODWORTH 


1S58 


48442 


AMCRM-PBH 




Program Budget & 












Funding Policy Div 


MR D.R.LOOMER 


3S50 


49110 


AMCRM-PP 




Procurement Execution & 












Stock Fund Div 


COL P.F.BAUMANN 


9S58 


48347 


AMCRM-?? 




Force Development Div 


MR G. E.TAGTMEYER 


2E08 


48215 


AMCRM-MF 




HQ Manpower Ofc 


MR J.McCUTCHEON 


2N21 


49365 


AMCRM-MFH 




Productivity Mgt Div 


MR P.F.ROBERTS 


3W06 


48678 


AMCRM-MP 




Finance & Accounting Div 


COL W.MIKKELSON 


3N54 


49231 


AMCRM-F 




Internal Review & Audit 












Compliance Div 


MR M.G.ARTHUR 


3S26 


49020 


AMCRM-I 




Systems Management Div 


MR A.F.ALLISON 


3N54 


45175 


AMCRM-S 




Programs & Projects Div 


MS B. L PATE (Act) 


3N09 


49079 


AMCRM-Z 




Deputy Career Program 










1 


Manager 


MS A.MORRIS 


3N58 


49211 


AMCRM-D 



DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR 
PERSONNEL 



AMCPE 



Dep CofS 

AsstDepCofS 
Exec Officer 
Admin Officer 
Civilian Personnel 
HQCPO 

Military Personnel 

HQ Mil Pers Ofc 

Cmd Reenl Ofc 

Adjutant General 

Provost Marshal 

HQ Security Ofc 

Plans & Programs 



MG J.G.BOATNER 

MR A.GRIMMETT 
LTC F.GRAUER 
MRS L.PiERPCINT 
MR K.MORRIS 
MR R.BROOKS 
COL R.NITZSCHE 
CPT SMITH 
SGM MILLER 
COL D.WINKLER 
COL D. GARNER 
MS M.COSBY 
VACANT 



2E14 


48195 


AMCPE 


2E14 


48195 


AMCPE 


2E14 


48195 


AMCPE-X 


2E18 


48421 


AMCPE-A 


2W20 


49167 


AMCPE-C 


2S24 


49427 


AMCPE-CH 


2S56 


49325 


AMCPE-M 


1E06 


48150 


AMCPE-MH 


2S44 


49103 


AMCPE-ME 


1N12 


48520 


AMCAG 


10N44 49033 


AMCPE-S 


1N58 


49141 


AMCPE-SH 


2C06 


49474 


AMCPE-P 





DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF 








ENGINEER 






AMCEN 


Dep CofS 


COL J.HUBBARD 


5W12 


49041 


AMCEN 


AsstDepCofS 


MR J.W.BOUCHER 


5W12 


49041 


AMCEN 


ADCSEngr& Housing 


COL J.SIMONEAUX 


5W06 


49390 


AMCEN-E 


Facilities Div 


MR W.PEARCE 


5W06 


49296 


AMCEN-F 


Housing Mgt Div 


MR J.SLADE 


5N10 


48492 


AMCEN-H 


Real Estate Ofc 


MR S. FRIED 


5N10 


49012 


AMCEN-R 


Energy Ofc 


MR C.THOMAS 


5W11 


48097 


AMCEN-C 


Plans & Programs Ofc 


LTC R.ANEZ 


5W18 


49026 


AMCEN-P 


Environmental Quality 










Div 


MR W. N. HASSELKUS 


5S06 


49389 


AMCEN-A 


Services Div 


MR D.W.DIETRICH 


5W20 


49273 


AMCEN-S 


HQ Support Div 


MR G.BURFORD 


1S52 


49005 


AMCEN-0 


Installations & Services 










Activity 


VACANT 






AMXEN 


Rock Island, IL AV 793-5018 











DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF 








FOR READINESS 




AMCRE 


DepCofS 


BG D.R.WILLIAMSON 


5N58 


49719 


AMCRE 


AsstDepCofS 


MR B.McDANIEL 


5N58 


49718 


AMCRE 


Executive Off 


LTC W.RUSSELL 


5N58 


49720 


AMCRE-X 


Admin Officer 


MRS S.COMRAS 


5N56 


49460 


AMCRE-A 


Readiness Assistance 










Div 


COL G.CROWDER 


5N26 


49889 


AMCRE-R 


Concepts & Doctrine Div 


COL R.BEALE 


5E08 


49725 


AMCRE-C 


Military Plans & 










Operations Div 


COL W.J.LIEPIS 


5E11 


49738 


AMCRE-P 


Historical Office 


DR D.BIRDSELL 


G1W18 48191 


AMCRE-H 


Aviation Office 


COL W.B. WILDER 


G2C60 


49225 


AMCRE-AV 





DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR 






PROCUREMENT 




AMCPP 


DepCofS 




BG M.J.PEPE 


9E06 


48159 AMCPP 


AsstDepCofS 










Proc Pol & Anal 




MR J. R. JURY 


9N56 


48262 AMCPP-S 


Executive Officer 




LTC R.PONIKVAR 


9E06 


48169 AMCPP-X 


Plans &. Admin Office 




MS A.E.ARRINGTON 


9E19 


48170 AMCPP-A 


Procurement Mgt Div 




MR P. BEAUMONT (Act) 


9S48 


48350 AMCPP-M 


Competition Mgt Ofc 




MR R.KUHN(Act) 


9S46 


45685 AMCPP-P 


SC 97 Proponent 




MAJ D.CARR 


9N26 


48126 AMCPP-S 


Tng W/lndustry 




MAJ J.ELMORE 


9N26 


48126 AMCPP-S 


Civ Proc Career Program 


MR J. WOLF 


9N26 


48938 AMCPP-S 



10S60 49644 AMCGS 

10S60 49644 AMCGS 
10S54 49665 AMCGS 
10S54 49645 AMCGS 
10S54 49646 AMCGS 
10S54 49645 AMCGS 
10S54 49659 AMCGS 
10S48 48588 AMCGS 
10S45 49662 AMCGS-A 



COMMAND SERGEANT MAJOR 



AMCCSM 



CSM W.B.TAPP.JR. 



10E08 48257 AMCCSM 



PROTOCOL OFFICE 



AMCPR 



Protocol Officer 

Protocol Asst 
Admin Protocol Asst 



MS E.BARRY 
MRS B. EARNEST 
MRS P.MacCAFFRAY 



10S50 47853 
10S50 47853 
10S50 47853 



AMCPR 

AMCPR 
AMCPR 



OFFCE OF THE COMMAND COUNSEL 


AMCCC 




Command Counsel 


MR B.M.BLAIR 


7E06 


48046 


AMCCC 




The Deputy Command 












Counsel 


MR E.J.KORTE 


7E06 


48046 


AMCCC-P 




Deputy Command 












Counsel/Staff 












Judge Advocate 


COL J.N.McCUNE 


7N56 


48003 


AMCCC-S 




Asst Command Counsel 


MR A.T.LANE 


7E06 


48031 


AMCCC-L 




Executive Off 


MR T.J.CAVEY.JR. 


7E06 


48047 


AMCCC-X 




Adversary Proceedings 












Div 


MR R.I.BARDAVID 


7N48 


48080 


AMCCC-B 




Mil Law/Legal Svc Div 


COL J.N.McCUNE 


7N56 


48003 


AMCCC-S 




Patent Law Div 


MR A.T.LANE 


7E06 


48031 


AMCCC-L 




Procurement Law Div 


MR E.J.KORTE 


7E06 


48046 


AMCCC-P 





OFFICE OF THE CHAPLAIN 



AMCCH 



Staff Chaplain 

Chaplain 
Chaplain 



COL W.E.DANIELSON 
LTC C.H.ROLAND 
LTC R.F.BERGER 



10S29 49432 

10S29 49432 
10S29 49432 



AMCCH 

AMCCH 
AMCCH 



OFFICE OF THE SURGEON 



AMCSG 



Surgeon 

Occupational Medicine 
Environmental Quality 
Medical Physics 
Medical Entomologist 
Industrial Hygienist 



COL T. NOWOSIWSKY, M.D. 10S24 49470 AMCSG 

MAJ T. WEYANDT, M.D. 10S24 49470 AMCSG-0 

LTC R.J.FITZ.JR. 10S24 49470 AMCSG-S 

LTC C.E.DAY 10S24 49470 AMCSG-R 

LTC M.SULLIVAN 10S24 49470 AMCSG-E 

MR J.S.SVALINA 10S24 49470 AMCSG-I 



PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICE 



AMCPA 



Chief 

Associate Public Affairs 

Officer/Industry 

Relations 
Comd Info 

DARCOMNews . 

Inter/Change 
Media Relations 
Community Relations 



COL D.J.O'MALLEY 



10S35 48010 AMCPA 



MR 
MR 
MS 
MS 
MR 
MR 



J. M. GORGAS 

E. V. DUGGAN 

G.LARKIN 

G.LARKIN 

R. APONTE (Act) 

G.D.HILL 



10S35 48010 
10S35 48019 
7C55 49526 
7C55 49526 
10S35 48012 
10S35 45518 



AMCPA 

AMCPA-CI 

AMCPA-CI 

AMCPA-CI 

AMCPA-MR 

AMCPA-CR 



ORGAMZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS OFFICE amcoe 



Chief LTC M.D.MIERAU 1N20 48532 AMCOE 

OE Staff Officer MAJ D.J.BUEHLER 1N20 48532 AMCOE 

OE Staff Officer MR R.A.KLAUS 1N20 48536 AMCOE 

OE Staff Officer MS B.M.LEE 1N2Q 48536 AMCOE 

OE Staff Officer MR L.F.BASS 1N20 48536 AMCOE 

Ops Rsch Analysis DR W. L. WOODSMALL 1N20 48536 AMCOE 





SAFETY OFFICE 




AMCSF 


Chief 


MR L.L.MOTHERSBAUGH 


10N36 49475 


AMCSF 


Aviation 


MR L.L.BECKER 


10N36 49475 


AMCSF-A 


Chemical 


MR J.G.PERRY 


10N41 49340 


AMCSF-C 


Engineering 


MR R.A.VASELICH 


10N41 49340 


AMCSF-E 


Health Physics 


MR D.N.TARAS 


10N41 49340 


AMCSF-P 


Occupational Safety & 








Health 


MR R.J.FATZ 


10N36 49475 


AMCSF-S 


Field Safety Activity 


MR J.D.LLOYD 
IAAP, Charlestown, IN 


AV366-7415 


AMXOS 



SPECIAL ASSISTANTS 



Joint Activities 
Congressional Affairs 
Ombudsman 
Special Assistant 



COL E. P. WHITEHOUSE 
MR C.R.SMITH 
MR L.J.ASHLEY 
MR H. HANDLER 



10S18 49694 
10S32 48263 
10N06 48252 
10W12 48692 



AMCJO 
AMCLL 
AMCOB 
AMCDRA 



SENIOR ADVISORS 



SA/USARNG 
SA/USA RESERVE 



COL D.E.WILSON 
COL C.L.JIMMO 



10S38 49683 AMCSA-NG 
10S38 49689 AMCSA-AR 



OFFICE OF SMALL & DISADVANTAGED 
BUSINESS UTILIZATION 



AMCSB 



Chief MR F.C.BRDA 1C09 48185 AMCSB 

SADBU Specialist MR J. K. BUTTERFIELD 1C09 48186 AMCSB 

SADBU Specialist MS D.AGNEW 1C09 48185 AMCSB 

SADBU Specialist MR J. R. FALKENHAM 1C09 48185 AMCSB 



LIAISON TO HEADQUARTERS, AMC 



Australia 
United Kingdom 
Canada 
Germany 
Marine Corps 
TRADOC/Logistics 
Center 
DESCOM 
AMC-EUR 
FSTC 

AMC 



LogCen 

HQ, AF Systems 
Command 
TCATA/Ft.Hood.TX 



MAJ V.J. GIBBONS 
LTC E.H.CURPHEY 
LTC R. R. HOODSPITH 
LTC A. SIMBUERGER, Ph.D. 
MAJ R.C.LEPLEY 

COL W.NORMAN 
MRS D.B.STOKES 
MRS M- QUACKENBUSH 
MR J.A.BURT 



10S44 49676 ALNO 
10S44 49675 BLNO 
10S44 49679 CLNO 
10S38 49684 GELNO 
10S49 49673 AMCGS-F 



10S49 49678 
4N08 49647 
4N08 49648 
8N47 48853 



AMCGS-L 
AMCGS-D 
AMXEU-E 
AMXST-WLO 



Point of Contact for all Documents and Visits is Security Office. 
Security Support Activity, Atlanta, GA, AV 797-5543/44 

FROM HEADQUARTERS, AMC 



LTC B.R.BUCHTA 



MR J. H. PROCTOR 
LTC D. M. MacWILLIE 



Ft. Lee, Va. 

AV 

Commercial 

AV 

AV 



687-5262 

9-981-5181 

858-5181 

738-1228 



AMCGS-C 

AMXFA 
AMXFS 



OFFICE OF DEPUTY CG FOR RESEARCH, 


DEVELOPMENT AND ACQUISITION amcdra 


Principal Asst Deputy 




tor REM 


MR R.O. BLACK 10N06 49709 AMCDRA 


Asst Deputy/Science & 




Technology 


DR R.L.HALEY 10N12 49560 AMCDRA-ST 


Asst Deputy for 




International Programs 


MR B.R. DUNETZ 9W14 48367 AMCIP 


Asst Deputy for 




Production 


MR F.J.MICHEL 9N08 48298 AMCDRA-PD 


Executive Off 


LTC(P) W.B.HEGGIE.JR. 10N06 49710 AMCDRA 


Asst Executive Off 


LTC(P) R.J.LUNSFORD.JR. 10N06 49710 AMCDRA 


Admin Off 


MRS G. BARKER 10W12 48692 AMCRDA 



OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT & ANALYSIS amcdma-m 



Chief COL H.L. HARRISON 4N24 48676 AMCDMA-M 

Deputy Chief MR R.G.SILVEY 4N24 48677 AMCDMA-M 

Exec Officer MAJ D.M.SHERIDAN 4N24 48874 AMCDMA-M 

Admin Officer MR R.D.INGRAM , 4N09 48945 AMCDMA-M 

Analysis Div MR W.FERRON 7S28 49265 AMCDMA-MA 

ResEvalDiv MR R.JAMESON 4S18 48848 AMCDMA-MR 

Rev & Analysis Div MR W.CHAVET 3N08 49170 AMCDMA-MM 

Studies Mgt Div MR R.VERBEKE 4N16 48038 AMCDMA-MS 

Missions Org Div MR C.SCHIPP 4N17 49887 AMCDMA-MO 

Tech Library MR D.MONROE 7S35 48152 AMCDMA-ML 






OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL amcig L 
& AMC IG ACTIVITY amxig 


Inspector General COL W.TRENT 


1S12 48070 AMCIG 


AMC INSPECTOR GENERAL ACTIVITY 


Chief COL W.TRENT 

Coordination & Control 

Division MR R.V. MURPHY 
Administrative Officer MRS E. DASH 
Investigations Division VACANT 
Acquisition Inspection Div COL J. D. COLLITON 
Systems Inspection Div COL C. RAMSEY 
Logistics Inspection Div COL J.L.BENNETT 


1S12 48070 AMXIG 

1S14 48072 AMXIG-C 

1S14 48079 AMXIG-A 

1S08 48064 AMXIG-V 

Ft. Blv 664-2271 AMXIG-AQ 

Ft Blv 664-6511 AMXIG-S 

Ft Blv 664-6611 AMXIG-L 



DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR 




AMCIM I 
ASNC 


INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 




Dep CofS 


MR G.B.HOSLER 


4E16 


48626 


AMCIM 


Director 


MR G.B.HOSLER 


4E16 


48626 


ASNC 


AsstDepCofS 


MR J.A.SAUM 


4E16 


48626 


AMCIM 


Executive Off 


LTC A.E.LAMBERT 


4E16 


48626 


AMCIM-X 


Deputy Director/DOIM 


COL D.E.WHITE 


3S10 


49056 


AMCIM-D 


Admin Off 


MRS M.E.LAPOINTE 


4N51 


45036 


AMCIM-A 


Systems Div 


VACANT 


4N52 


49140 


AMCIM-S 


Information and 










Technology Div 


MR R.T.EDWARDS 


4E08 


48946 


AMCIM-I 


Resources Div 


MR J.CIANFLONE 


4E22 


49480 


AMCIM-R 


Operations Div 


MAJ E.P.SAULS 


G2CK 


3 45261 


AMCIM-0 







OFFICE OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITY 


AMCEE 




Chief 


MR G.L. JONES 


10S15 49690 


AMCEE 




EO Officer 


MAJ M.E.CAIN 


2S40 49138 


AMCEE 




AMC Fed Women's 










Prog Mgr 


VACANT 


10S15 49690 


AMCEE 




AMC Hispanic Emp 










Prog Mgr 


MR R.A.MIRABAL 


10S15 49690 


AMCEE 




HQ Ofc of Equal 










Opportunity 


MR R.D. SHANKS 


5N54 49750 


AMCEE-R 







OFFICE OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT 


AMCPM 




Chief 


LTC(P) W.R.HOLMES 


10N18 49571 


AMCPM 




Asst Chief 


MR R.L. MICHELLON 


10N18 49570 


AMCPM 




Proj Mgt Officer 


VACANT 


10N18 49570 


AMCPM 




Charters 


MRS B.M.DECATUR 


10N17 49575 


AMCPM 




Charter Asst 


MRS M.S.HUBBARD 


10N17 49572 






AMCPM 










Policy 


MR L.R.ISRAEL 


10N17 49572 


AMCPM 




Admin Off 


MRS K.A.WALKER 


10N18 49570 


AMCPM 





DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR 
PRODUCTION 



AMCPD 



Dep CofS 

ADCS Production 
Asst Prod Rvws 
XO and Admin Off 
ADCS for Prod Spt 

Eng & Prod Spt Div 

Production Assessment 
Div 
ADCS for Weapons Sys 

Prod Mgt 

Weapons & Munitions Div MR H. R. BARNETT 

Aircraft* Other Spt Div MR J.D.QUIGLEY(Act) 

Missile &Comm/Elec Div MR G.B.LANGFORD 

Tracked Combat & Tac 
VehDiv MR A.O.ELKINS 

ADCS for Industrial LTC R.C.HORNE(Act) 

Preparedness 

Program Formulation Div MR W.J.JENKINS 

Mobilization Planning Div MR C. H. KIMZEY 



MR D.L. GRIFFIN 

COL J.C.DONDLINGER 

MR A. H. NORDSTROM 

MAJ K.M.MILLER 

MR M.E.WESTMORELAND 

MR J.KICAK 

MR M.E.WESTMORELAND 

(Act) 

COL E.M.LEE, JR. 



9E22 
9E22 
9E22 
9E22 
9S37 
9N18 

9S37 

9E08 
9N55 
9N55 
9N08 

9N08 
9E10 

9E10 
9E10 



48189 


AMCPD 


48198 


AMCPD 


48200 


AMCPD 


48201 


AMCPD-X 


48333 


AMCPD-S 


46748 


AMCPD-SE 


48333 


AMCPD-SA 


48298 


AMCPD-P 


49621 


AMCPD-PW 


49623 


AMCPD-PA 


48285 


AMCPD-PM 


48298 


AMCPD-PT 


48225 


AMCPD-I 


48211 


AMCPF-IP 


48?25 


AMCPD-IM 



DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR 




PRODUCT ASSURANCE & TESTING 


AMCQA 


DepCofS 


MR S.J.LORBER 


4W22 


48929 


AMCQA 


AsstDepCofS 


MR J.A.LOCKERD 


4W22 


48925 


AMCQA 


Admin Officer 


MS L.SELZQ 


4W20 


45448 


AMCQA-A 


System Eval & Test Div 


COL J.R.HILL 


4W06 


48122 


AMCQA-S 


Missile/Aviation 


MR G.R.NEWPORT 


4W06 


48122 


AMCQA-SA 


Ground Combat/ 










Munitions 


LTC D.G.FITE 


4W06 


48122 


AMCQA-SG 


Command Control/ 










Troop Spt 


MR W.GOOLEY 


4W06 


48122 


AMCQA-SC 


Test Policy/Evaluation 


MR L.St JEAN 


4W06 


48122 


AMCQA-ST 


Product Quality Div 


VACANT 


4W20 


48899 


AMCQA-P 


Ammo Surveillance 


MR D.W.FOULK 


4W08 


48889 AMCqA-PA 


Supply & Maintenance 


MR M.G.DONLEY 


4W08 


48890 


AMCQA-PD 


Procurement Policy 


MR E.D.WALKER, JR. 


4W20 


48910 


AMCQA-PP 


Selected Program Review MR K. H. COONRADT 


4W20 


48904 


AMCQA-PR 


Engineering Div 


MR K.P.LaSALA 


4S06 


48912 


AMCQA-E 


Software 


MR W.C.PIROWSKI 


4S06, 


48920 


AMCQA-ES 


Reliability 


MR P.A.NAPALA 


4S06 


48919 


AMCQA-ER 


Maintainability 


MR R.T.HWANG 


4S06 


48916 


AMCQA-EM 


Quality Engineering 


MR H.L. LIGHT 


4S06 


48916 


AMCQA-EQ 


Corrosion/RSI 


MR I. SMART 


4S06 


48916 


AMCQA-EA 


RAM Data Systems 


VACANT 


4S06 


48920 


AMCQA-EQ 


Advanced RAM Tech 


VACANT 


4S06 


48920 


AMCQA-ET 


Computer Services 


MS M.GOMEZ 


4W14 


48900 


AMCQA-EX 



SPECIAL PROJECTS OFFICE FOR LHX/MSE amcsp 



LHX 

LHX 

MSE 



LTC R.BEAUCHAMP 

MR LWERBER 
LTC A.A.SEVERINO 



10N54 47676 AMCSP-L 

10N54 47676 AMCSP-L 
10N54 47676 AMCSP-M 



DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR 


I 


DEVELOPMENT, ENGINEERING & ACQUISITION amcde 


Dep CofS 


BG M.L.FERGUSON 


8E08 


49490 


AMCDE 


Executive Officer 


LTC W.B. WEST 


8E08 


49494 


AMCDE-X 


Army RDA Magazine 


LTC D.G.KIRKPATRICK 


8S57 


48978 


AMCDE-XM 


Opns&SptDiv 


MS B.Y.HEARN 


8N55 


48537 


AMCDE-0 


Admin Officer 


MS R.WEIGEL 


8N47 


48028 


AMCDE-OP 


Asst Dep CofS-SOF 


COL D.L.SAUNDERS 


7W06 


45480 


AMCDE-F 


Dep CofS-Sys Mgt 


MR A.V.CAMPI 


8N54 


49850 


AMCDE-S 


Health Haz Assess Ofc 


MAJ W.T.BROADWATER 


8N54 


49851 


AMCDE-S 


AirDefDiv 


COL J.H.BIRRANE 


8N31 


49651 


AMCDE-SD 


Btfld Info &CCCC Div 


COL H.R.ARCHIBALD 


9N13 


49310 


AMCDE-SB 


Cbt Spt/Avn/lntel/EW Div COL J.S.DAVIS 


8N28 


48118 


AMCDE-SA 


Cbt Svc Spt/Tng Div 


COL G.H. HEATH 


8N14 


49828 


AMCDE-SS 


Close Cmbt Div 


COL P.L.YEATS 


8N48 


49870 


AMCDE-SG 


Fire Spt/Mun Div 


COL W.J.SANCHEZ 


8N42 


48604 


AMCDE-SM 


Asst Dep CofS-Prog Mgt 


MR R.D.GREENE 


8E14 


49848 


AMCDE-P 


Acq Assess & Pol Div 


VACANT 


9C32 


49295 


AMCDE-PQ 


Auto Info Div 


COL A.E.JEFFERY 


8N23 


45872 


AMCDE-PA 


Deep Battle Div 


COL D.KARRER 


9S28 


48227 


AMCDE-PD 


Pgm Integ Div 


COL J. G. LAND 


3W14 


49200 


AMCDE-PI 


RDTE Pgm Bud Con 


MR M.R.DONNELLY 


8E14 


49860 


AMCDE-PB 


Space Div 


COL R.G.TOTTEN 


8C55 


49824 


AMCDE-PS 


Sys Integ Div 


COL M.R.BARRON 


9S28 


48229 


AMCDE-PM 




DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR 






INTELLIGENCE 






AMCMI 


Dep CofS 


COL B.H.DAVIS 


1E14 


48134 


AMCMI 


Dep to Dep CofS for 










Fgn Intel 


MR C H.HOWELL 


1E14 


481 34 


AMCUI-F 


Fgn Intel Spt Div 


MR A. MCGREGOR 


1E14 


48134 


AMCMI-FS 


Fgn Intel Rqmts & 










Prod Mgt Div 


MR R.V. MILES 


1E14 


48134 


AMCMI-FR 


Asst Dep CofS for Security 


LTC S.R.HARRIS 


1E14 


48134 


AMCMI-S 


Security Div 


MR B.KUTCH 


1E22 


49066 


AMCMI-SS 


Tech Loss Control Div 


MR R.VALIMAKI 


1E22 


49066 


AMCMI-ST 


Special Progs Div 


MR R.E.SIMAK 


1E14 


48134 


AMCMI-SP 


Foreign Disclosure Ofc 


MRS M.WITT 


FtGillem.GA 


AV 797-5543 






Z 30050-5000 


AMCMI-SF 





DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR 






INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS 


AMCIP 


Dep CofS 


MR B.R. DUNETZ 


9W14 48367 


AMCIP 


Asst Dep CofS 


COL C.E.GARDNER 


9W14 48367 


AMCIP 


Spec Asst 


MR R.C.COOK 


9S15 48231 


AMCIP 


Northern Europe 


MR M.P.ZAPF 


9W14 48367 


AMCIP-EN 


Central Europe 


MS M.F.SMITH 


9W14 48367 


AMCIP-EC 


Southern Europe 


MR E.GONZALES 


9W14 48367 


AMCIP-ES 


North America 


MR S.D.CONNORS 


9W14 48367 


AMCIP-EN 


Mid/FE&SoHemi 


MR A.MAHR 


9W14 48367 


AMCIP-M 


MultilatStdz 


MR M.Y.HARVEY 


9W15 48554 


AMCIP-P 


Pol/Plans & Prog 


MR EB.HOLLEY 


9W15 48554 


AMCIP-P 


Commanders 








USARDSG-UK 


COL C.A.HODDER 


COMM 44-1-402-7185/7282 


USARDSG-GE 


COL F.P.WEICHEL 


COMM 49-228-339-2732/2721 


USARDSG-CA 


COL D.SYNDER 


AV 627-8284 


USARDSG-AS 


LTC H.E.WARVARI 


COMM 61-62-653943 



DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR 
TECHNOLOGY PLANNING & MANAGEMENT 



AMCLD 



Dep CofS 


MR R.VITALI 


10N24 49561 


AMCLD 


Operations Manager 


MR R.LANGWORTHY 


10N26 49565 


AMCLD 


Long Range Planning 


MR B.FONOROFF 


10N25 49579 


AMCLD 


Lab Management 


MR B.BARTHOLOW 


10N27 48372 


AMCLD 


Special Projects 


DR H.GIESKE 


10N24 49561 


AMCLD 


IR&D Manager 


DR K.BASTRESS 


10N09 48671 


AMCLD 


Tech Transfer 


MR J.KOLB 


10N09 48671 


AMCLD 


SBIR 


MR J.FORRY 


10N09 48671 


AMCLD 


Tri-SvclndlnfoCtr 


MRS D.MAHON 


8S58 48948 


AMCLD 


Tech Integration Office 


LTC(P) J.ALEXANDER 


790-0650 


AMCLD 



DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR 
CHEMICAL AND NUCLEAR MATTERS 



AMCCN 



Dep CofS 

Executive Officer 
Chief, Chemical Opns Div 
Chief, Chemical Mat Div 
Chief, Nuclear Div 



BG P.D.HIDALGO 

LTC D.H.BROWN 
COL R.H.TIMPF 
MR C.RUBEN 
COL P.SZWARCKOP 



10W16 49620 
10W16 49015 
10C09 49463 
2S17 45617 
10W18 45550 



AMCCN 

AMCCN-X 
AMCCN-C 
AMCCN-M 
AMCCN-N 



SANG MODERNIZATION PROGRAM 



BG P. R. SCHWARTZ, PM 

LTC R.S. LOWER, Chief, Wash Ofc 



5S32 

5S32 



49126 AMCPM-NG 

49126 AMCPM-NGW 



Staff Duty Officer 

Autovon 284-9223 

Commerical 202-274-9223 
Operations Center: Autovon 284-8406 

Commercial 202-274-8406 

Published by 

Dep CofS for Information Management 

US Army Materiel Command 

Telephone: 274-8158 

Autovon: 284-8158 

Commercial: 202-274 

Cable Address: CDRAMC ALEX VA 



HECKMAN IX 
3INDERY INC. |§i 

AUG 96 

.nd-To-PkasP N.MANCHESTER. 
INDIANA 46962